Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Thursday 21 June.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate, further adjourned till Thursday 21 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 21 June.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 June.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 21 June.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 June.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 21 June

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Remand Prisoners

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has any further proposals to bring forward regarding the treatment of remand prisoners.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): On 3 May, in answer to a previous question from the hon. Lady, I referred to proposed changes in visiting arrangements and to pilot schemes to reduce censorship and to provide card phones for unconvicted prisoners.
We are also seeking, through the prison building and refurbishment programmes, to reduce overcrowding and to improve the accommodation in which many such prisoners are at present held. In addition, guidance is shortly to be issued on the limited mixing of unconvicted and convicted prisoners, subject to close supervision, to allow participation by unconvicted prisoners in a wider range of activities.

Ms. Quin: Although I am interested to hear some of the measures proposed, is not it the case that many remand prisoners are forced to share cells with three or more others, are forced to share with convicted criminals and are sometimes kept in their cells for up to 23 hours a day? As the principle of British justice is that someone is presumed innocent until proved guilty, is not this a disgrace?

Mr. Mellor: I very much doubt whether many—if any—prisons run such impoverished regimes as the hon. Lady suggests. But it is clear that there is a problem which we steadily sought to address in the past decade and which we are within sight of resolving. Two thousand prison places have become available over the past two years, a further 1,600 will become available this year and there are 7,000 in the pipeline. Fourteen new prisons are being constructed, nine of which are local prisons or will take remand prisoners. Provided that there is no sudden surge in unconvicted prisoners, that puts us on course to resolve many of the problems. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that it was about time that a Government came to power who were willing to put resources into the prisons, and this Government are doing that.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. and learned Friend's answers are most welcome. However, does he agree that, whatever the conditions under which remand prisoners are kept, the worst part of their existence is the length of time before their trial? Do he and his colleagues have any initiatives to reduce the time before trial for remand prisoners?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, Sir. In various parts of the country, courts are now subjecting themselves to the discipline of fairly strict guidance about the time in which certain stages of a trial should proceed. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that there are twin problems. First, there is the number of people whom the courts—perfectly properly in most instances—decide to remand in custody and, secondly, there is the period for which those people are on

remand. We want to ensure that there are no unavoidable delays in the administration of the justice system, and we are doing that.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister is notorious for being able to slide off the point. He is aware that after the events at Risley in 1989 and after the prison disturbances in 1986 and 1988, strong recommendations were made for different treatment of remand prisoners. Why did not the Government react to those recommendations? Why did they do so little? Is the Minister conscious that Vivienne Stern, the director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, said that if only the Government had acted, Strangeways might not have happened?

Mr. Mellor: That is a superficial and unfair analysis. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the 14 prisons being constructed, nine of which will take remand prisoners, will make a massive contribution to solving the problem. If the hon. Gentleman wants to initiate a debate on these matters, we shall be only too happy to discuss them with him. If he promises me that he will spend the first 10 minutes explaining the dismal policies of the previous Labour Government, who cut prison building to the bone, I will listen to his second 10 minutes, when he will no doubt tell us how we should run the system now.

Prisoners (Drugs)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a policy of screening all prisoners on a regular basis for the use of dangerous drugs.

Mr. Mellor: All new receptions are seen and interviewed by a member of the health care staff and are asked whether they have ever taken drugs. Indications of the use of drugs by injection are looked for at that time. We are considering whether some form of subsequent screening, whether for clinical or control purposes, should be introduced.

Mr. Butler: Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the study in the British Medical Journal of 26 May this year which showed that 66 per cent. of convicted drug addicts had found needles in prison and injected with them? Might not that contribute to riotous behaviour in prisons?

Mr. Mellor: We certainly want to reduce the amount of drug taking in prisons, and I shall happily write to my hon. Friend explaining the large number of measures that we are taking to deal with the problem. I have not seen the survey to which he referred; I shall look at it. Of course, much depends upon accounts given by prisoners, whose reliability may be in question, and the thorough searches that we conduct in a number of establishments do not reveal anything like that picture. But we are by no means complacent.
I should point out to my hon. Friend that we are under pressure to improve regimes and to have more civilised visiting arrangements. The consequence of allowing visitors and prisoners easier access can be an increase in the risk of drugs being passed on. So we are damned if we do and damned if we do not. Nevertheless, we want to solve the drugs problem and we are taking steps to deal with it.

Mr. Hill: My hon. and learned Friend will be as aware as I am that it is common knowledge that drugs are freely available in most of our large prisons. There is a leakage. Whether it is through staff or visitors, or whether the prisoners bring drugs in, there is clearly a great security problem. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a thorough survey of the security of prisons in this respect would he advantageous?

Mr. Mellor: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says, although I think that it is easy to overstate the problem. More than 90 per cent. of the finds involve cannabis and only 3 per cent. heroin and cocaine. I assure my hon. Friend that I hold meetings to try to ensure that we upgrade our activity and that questions such as the extent to which visitors should be searched are under active consideration. We must be careful not to exaggerate the problem, although I am aware that running a disciplined prison is made all the more difficult if there is ready access to drugs. We must do something to ensure that that does not happen.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have the results of the Devon and Cornwall police investigations into aspects of the Birmingham pub bombings case.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): It is not possible at this stage to say when the Devon and Cornwall constabulary will be able to report on the results of its inquiries. I am sure that the whole House would want the inquiries to be as thorough as possible.

Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his reply, but, with the best will in the world, many of us are worried that we shall never see the report. The best that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do, on the basis of a report that we shall not see, is to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, whose record in this case we know: it dismissed serious new evidence when the case was last referred to it.
In contrast, we have the inquiry into the Maguire case, which appears to be collapsing in front of our eyes. Do not we need a full open inquiry in public into the case of the Birmingham Six, so that all the evidence can be properly reviewed?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Lady will know that I am always prepared to consider any new material that is offered to me which may relate to the safety of a conviction. That is why, when representations were made to me, I thought it right to put certain matters to the chief constable of the West Midlands, who in turn thought it right to call for the assistance of the Devon and Cornwall police. I do not think that the hon. Lady can say that I have been lax in any way in ensuring that there have been proper inquiries into these matters.

Mr. David Nicholson: With regard to the Birmingham case, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most Conservative Members—and, I suspect, a number of Opposition Members—are heartily fed up with unsubstantiated claims of innocence and guilt? Does he further agree that if certain Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), have

evidence about those who carried out the Birmingham bombings, they should make that evidence known to the appropriate authorities?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is up to all of us to exercise responsibility in those matters. I have said what my responsibilities are and I believe that I am carrying them out.

Mr. Hattersley: On a matter which I know the Home Secretary accepts is related both to the initial question and to his answer, will he tell us, in the light of this morning's statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the May committee that he regards the convictions of the Maguires unsafe, what steps he now proposes to take on that and related matters?

Mr. Waddington: I should tell the House that this morning counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions told the May inquiry that, in his view, the convictions of the Maguires and the others convicted of possessing explosives are unsafe and unsatisfactory. In view of that, I should say straight away that I do not believe that the convictions can be allowed to stand. The correct course will probably be for me to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, but I do not think that it is right to do that until all the submissions on that issue have been presented to the inquiry and Sir John May has had an opportunity to respond to them. Once I have referred the case to the Court of Appeal it will become sub judice and it would then be very difficult for the May inquiry to go into those matters any further.

Sunday Trading

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following the decision of Croydon magistrates to dismiss Sunday trading summonses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: One representation has been received. The Government recognise that the interpretation of the judgment of the European Court is causing some difficulty, but this is a matter for the courts in the first instance. Since the defeat of the Shops Bill, the Government have made it clear that, while maintaining our previous views on the matter, we are prepared to consider reform short of total deregulation if a solution can be found which is widely accepted, enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the law on Sunday trading is absolute nonsense? Is he aware that 13 national opinion polls on Sunday trading have been carried out over the past two years and that 63 per cent. of the people want Sunday trading? When will we listen to the people? When will we get rid of this ridiculous and rotten law?

Mr. Mellor: One or two of us, including my right hon. and learned Friend and I, sought to do that very thing back in 1985. I cannot help feeling that we would have avoided quite a lot of the difficulties that have since emerged had that Bill been permitted to become law. However, it was not and we are therefore in a situation not of our choosing. I have always said from the Dispatch Box


that the criminal law has no place in the enforcement of who can buy what on a Sunday. We must accept that that is the law and live with the consequences. I hope that one of the consequences of the muddle that has emerged is that hon. Members will recognise that Parliament has repeatedly abdicated its responsibility to put the law into a sensible shape and I hope that an opportunity will be found to do that without too much further delay.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that there is no muddle over this matter in south Wales? In my constituency this week the magistrate in Cwmbran successfully prosecuted B and Q for illegal Sunday trading. Does he accept now that there is no excuse whatsoever for do-it-yourself stores like B and Q openly to flout the law of the land? Will he urge the Attorney-General to take up this case on behalf of Torfaen borough council, as I understand that B and Q is going to appeal?

Mr. Mellor: Happily, I am not the interpreter of the law of the land. But the hon. Gentleman's self-righteousness might extend to asking himself this question: why does he suppose that so many of his constituents thought it perfectly proper to shop on a Sunday? Does he really think that, whatever the law and its enforcement may be, which is not a matter for me, it is a sustainable basis on which to take British law into the last decade of the 20th century that we should have criminal penalties for people who simply want to sell legitimate household items to other members of the public?

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the determination to keep Sunday special is deeply rooted among the majority of people and that the Government's failure to appreciate that fact led to their difficulties with the Shops Bill? Will he now advise those who are seeking to subvert the law to wait until the Torfaen case, which was referred to the European Court of Justice and then referred back, reaches the stage of being subject to a judgment by a court of record?

Mr. Mellor: The sadness of the present position is that, in all the debates on this issue during my time in the House —I have attended all of them—not one hon. Member has ever said that he or she accepts the Shops Acts as they presently are. Everyone has said that they want a change, but no one has been able to agree what that change should be. I inform my hon. Friend, who is an experienced lawyer, that of course the law of the land is the law of the land, but he knows that court judgments simply reveal the inconsistency in the law. That means that, sooner or later, Parliament will need to address the issue.

Mr. Randall: Notwithstanding that very flimsy answer, is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in the country about the Government's failure since 1986 to introduce modern Sunday trading legislation? Is the Minister further aware that the Government are now perceived by informed and responsible opinion, through their procrastination, to be encouraging an organised campaign of law-breaking? When will the Government face up to their responsibilities and urgently introduce new legislation? The country wants to know now.

Mr. Mellor: We brought forward a solution that was not acceptable to the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman listen to my answer as I listened to his question? He knows that we made it clear that we would

be prepared to consider solutions that fall short of total deregulation if those solutions were coherent and workable. Before the hon. Gentleman again speaks in the terms that he did, he might send to me, on however many sides of a piece of paper he chooses, what he thinks the answer is. The Labour party, which is in the pocket of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers Union, has always known what it is against, but it has never known what it is in favour of.

Mr. Janman: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Conservative Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We often have to listen to things with which we are unhappy. We must listen to each other.

Mr. Janman: My hon. and learned Friend will need no reassurance from me that Conservative Members will not defend people who break the law. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about the events in his constituency, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the current law is not only totally outdated but is losing the respect of many retailers who wish to open on Sunday and millions of people who shop on Sundays and expect to have the right to do so in a free and civilised country? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House——

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.

Mr. Mellor: The sad fact is that the schedule to the Act contains a list of prohibited items that do not reflect the stock held by any shop. Therefore, it is almost impossible to think of any shop that is open on a Sunday and is trading lawfully. That is why I repeat that it is difficult not to sympathise with those who are trying to struggle with the question whether to enforce the law and what the law is when the law has not been modernised for 50 years.

Mr. Speaker: Question 5. Mr. Martyn Jones.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. will the hon. Gentleman please sit down?

Mr. Powell: We are not in the pockets of the shop workers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Order Paper, he will realise that there is another question on this matter. He must not seek to be selfish and try to get in every time.

British Summer Time

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in respect of proposed changes to British summer time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Representations covering all shades of opinion continue to be received in response to the Green Paper on summer time. The results of the consultation exercise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down. This question is about British summer time, and it is Mr. Martyn Jones's question. Did the hon. Gentleman hear the answer?

Mr. Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister please read it again?

Mr. Lloyd: The results of the consultation exercise will be announced very shortly.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for repeating his answer. When the results of the consultation exercise are made known, I hope that the Government will continue to resist any changes to British summer time. Does he accept that such changes would badly affect rural workers in my constituency and in many other constituencies further north?

Mr. Lloyd: The Government are well aware of opinion in Scotland and the north because of the responses to the Green Paper and our regular contacts with the relevant Department at the Scottish Office. We shall, of course, bear all shades of opinion in mind. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be publishing the results of the consultation exercise and the Government's decision will depend on the general debate that follows.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that if that change were to take place and we had summer time in the months of December, January and February, it would be absolutely disastrous for the construction industry? Is he further aware that I wrote the building industry's brief on this matter before the debate in 1971? I have not changed my views. The proposal should be strongly resisted.

Mr. Lloyd: We are very much aware of the views of the construction industry. What it urges is quite different from what other respondents have urged. The benefits and disadvantages of each aspect must be weighed carefully and then a judgment made.

Mr. Darling: Will the Minister explain the Government's difficulty over this matter? The Home Office has been considering this for more than two years now and the consultation period ended several months ago. Is the Minister aware that the dubious benefits of double summer time are outweighed by the undoubted inconvenience and possible danger to many people who live in different parts of the country?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman gives one view, but, as the results of the discussion paper will show, there are many different views depending on which element the respondent thinks is important. Difficult and detailed issues are involved, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given them careful thought over a considerable period. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to publish those results before the longest day in the year.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister take into account the fact that people involved in business and agriculture in Northern Ireland believe that he should resist any pressure to change the present practice? Will he also take on board the fact that not only is that belief shared by people in Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland, but that the original question was tabled by an hon. Member from Wales?

Mr. Lloyd: We shall take all those points into account. The right hon. Gentleman has underlined yet again the fact that there is a great variety of views on this issue, each of which has some validity.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant number of people believe that if we are to take the single European market seriously and compete in Europe, we should have the same time frame as Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I am aware of that view, which some people hold strongly while others believe that it is less important.

Terrorism

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had on international co-operation to combat terrorism.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: In the past three months my right hon. and learned Friend has discussed international cooperation against terrorism with ministerial colleagues from Germany, France, Czechoslovakia, Portugal and Bahrain, and will be discussing it with colleagues in the Trevi group at meetings in Dublin later today and tomorrow.

Mr. Brown: Why has no one been prosecuted for the Lockerbie outrage, bearing in mind that the Minister's Scottish colleague, the Lord Advocate, promised some time ago that a prosecution would take place? What has gone wrong? People around the world want to know. What is happening? It seems as though the Government are turning a blind eye to an issue which is clearly important to us all.

Mr. Lloyd: What the hon. Gentleman says is a load of nonsense. Investigations are proceeding with great urgency. We are receiving a great deal of co-operation around the world and I have no doubt that in due time arrests will be made.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend consider that the fight against international terrorism is compatible with the removal of all border controls between nation states? Is he receiving support from his Common Market partners in resisting the dismantling of all border controls for that purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: We have made it clear that we intend to keep our border checks and we find that there is increasing sympathy and understanding for our view among our EC partners.

Mr. Cryer: Are not open borders in 1992 and the continued assertion that the Government intend to dismantle all border controls incompatible with adequate controls against terrorism and the illegal movement of arms and drugs? So far, the Government have not told us of even one measure that they intend to take against the removal of barriers in 1992. All that they have done is to make platitudinous assertions.

Mr. Lloyd: We have made it clear that we intend to keep border controls and checks. We can do that in a way that is consistent with easy movement of EC nationals, who merely need to indicate who they are at the border checks.

Active Citizens

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to help promote the concept of the active citizen.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. and learned Friend and I take every opportunity to encourage responsible and active citizens and businesses to make a positive contribution to their communities and to charitable causes, particularly through volunteering and charitable giving.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend note the enthusiasm among Conservative Members for the concept of the active citizen, in particular the role that the active citizen can play in exercising his own responsibilities within the family and the community? The community neighbourhood watch scheme and the family can help the Government to reduce the appalling crime figures for juveniles of 15. Does he find that other Government Departments are playing their part in ensuring that the active citizen forms a central part of the Conservative party's next manifesto?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. Never before in British history have so many of our fellow citizens been involved in voluntary activity. The figure is now about one in four of all our citizens aged over 16. My hon. Friend referred to the neighbourhood watch scheme. Those who run such schemes in this country are the largest group of volunteers anywhere in the western world and they should be commended. Certainly, my right hon. Friends in other Government Departments are keen to promote the concept of the active citizen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is doing exactly that with local management of schools. I pay tribute to all parent governors who are helping with the local management of schools.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greater accountability brought about by the community charge will give a significant boost to the concept of the active citizen? In cases such as the recent arson attack on a school in my constituency the cost of repairs will fall on community charge payers throughout the borough. We therefore all have a major incentive to do what we can to prevent crimes of that nature.

Mr. Patten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I hope that he agrees that we must also diffuse to ordinary people in their communities as much power and control as possible over their lives. We are doing that through local management of schools and by giving tenants more rights to control their own lives, and we intend to continue the process in future years.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to recover the 2,000 or so non-material statements which were not made available to solicitors acting for the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

Mr. Waddington: It has not been established that any relevant evidence concerning the case of the Birmingham Six is missing. Representations about this possibility are among the issues which have been raised by the solicitor acting for the convicted men. I have passed these to the chief constable of the west midlands police, and they will be investigated by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary.

Mr. Banks: May I put it to the Home Secretary that although we all lose things from time to time—the Labour party just lost three elections, but our losing streak is now finished—losing 2,000 statements really seems a bit much? A pack of playing cards on which Dr. Scuse carried out his tests and pages clearly torn out of a notebook have also been lost. It seems either that the police are terminally careless or that a cover up is going on. The Secretary of State recently had to eat some words in relation to the Maguire case, and he will have to eat some words in the case of the Birmingham Six before long.

Mr. Waddington: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said, which was that it had not been established that any relevant evidence in the case of the Birmingham Six was missing. In fact, the alleged failure of the prosecution to tell the defence about the existence of none-material statements was considered by the Court of Appeal in 1987. The allegations are now being considered by the Devon and Cornwall police.

Mr. Shersby: In respect of the Maguire case, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us on what basis the conviction is thought to be unsound? Can he confirm that there is no question of any improper activity by the police?

Mr. Waddington: That is my understanding, but I only learnt about the matter this morning. I must read with care the submission made by counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions. My understanding is that he submitted that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory on the basis of the possibility of the accused having become innocently contaminated with traces of explosives.

Mr. Mullin: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the collapse of the Maguire case this morning makes it two out of three in the cases that I and many others have, for the past seven years, attempted to draw to his attention as examples of miscarriages of justice? Would not it be best to learn some lessons and hold a public inquiry into the Birmingham Six case, and one which commands public confidence? Should not that scandal be brought to an end once and for all? Does the Home Secretary accept my fear that some of the Birmingham Six may die in gaol, as did Paul Giuseppe Conlan, one of those arrested in the Maguire case? We want to avoid that happening.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should be pleased that when submissions were made to me that there was new evidence which should be investigated because it might cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, I asked the chief constable of the west midlands whether he would help, and he called in the Devon and Cornwall police. I cannot imagine what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. Indeed, we might have progressed more quickly with the inquiries if he had revealed many months ago the names of those whom he said were responsible for the bombing.

Mr. Kilfedder: If public inquiries are to be held, can there be one into every atrocity committed as a result of the IRA's shoot-to-kill policy?

Mr. Waddington: I am bound to say that, like the hon. Gentleman, I have often thought that it would be nice to see on television every now and again a documentary


highlighting the appalling atrocities committed by the IRA and the terrible damage that has been done to life in Ulster, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and mainland Britain.

Mr. Hattersley: May I bring the Home Secretary back to the crucial question, which is the status and reputation of justice in this country? Does he not understand that the submission by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the May committee inquiry this morning, and his own wholly proper reaction to it, further increase pressure for a new, thorough and objective inquiry into the convictions of the Birmingham Six? Sooner or later, that new inquiry will have to be held and it would do the Home Secretary's reputation a great deal of good if he set it up here and now.

Mr. Waddington: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about the matter for a moment or two, I think that he will agree that I am right to say that I shall consider carefully what the May inquiry says about the forensic science evidence in the Maguire case and I shall take fully into account any implications that it might have for the safety of other convictions. The reliability of the forensic science evidence in the Birmingham Six case was fully examined in 1987.

Remand Prisoners

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners held in police cells; and what the figure was one year ago.

Mr. Mellor: On Wednesday 13 June there were 887 prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales, compared with 218 people on 13 June 1989; 825 of them are being held in the north-west of England and are in police cells as a result of industrial action by the Prison Officers Association at some establishments in the north. I am most grateful to the police for their assistance in this matter.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I am sure that we are all grateful to the police, although hon. Members who have fewer policing hours available for policing their constituencies must be concerned about the situation. Will the Minister get together with the POA as soon as possible to find a solution to the problem?

Mr. Mellor: A meeting took place between Home Office officials and representatives of the POA in the north-west today. I have yet to receive a full report of the outcome. Obviously, at a time when the prison service is striving to cope with the aftermath of Strangeways and when we have announced a major refurbishment of that prison, as well as seeking to honour our commitments to upgrade other prisons, it is dreadful that as a result of industrial action we are having to pay the police service £180 per night to accommodate prisoners when there is plenty of room in the prisons in the north to accommodate prisoners there, where they should be.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I thank the Minister for his contratulations to the police and I join him in congratulating the Greater Manchester police on the tremendous job that they have been doing in looking after remand prisoners since Strangeways. Is he aware that it is

totally unacceptable for the police at police stations such as those in Stockport to have to go on looking after remand prisoners? It is also totally unacceptable to the prisoners and to their families. Will the Minister make it clear that this state of affairs cannot continue and that we must achieve a situation in which those remand prisoners can go back to prison and the police stations can get back to their normal functions?

Mr. Mellor: I am in the happy position of agreeing with absolutely every word that the hon. Gentleman said. That is why we have sought to persuade the POA to accept a common-sense solution. For example, Preston prison—one of the major prisons in the north—has a certified normal accommodation of 428, but there are barely more than 300 prisoners there at present. Industrial action is preventing the spaces being filled. The public and the House will not understand if it takes much longer to resolve these problems.

Sunday Trading

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation in the light of inconsistent judgments on Sunday trading cases now coming from the courts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).

Mrs. Roe: In the search for a compromise, will my hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention to the needs of garden centres, the purpose of which is widely recognised as being recreational? Will he bear in mind that some garden centres do as much as 70 per cent. of their business on Sundays and that without Sunday opening they would be forced to close? Does he appreciate that there is great concern in that industry about the continuing uncertainty?

Mr. Mellor: I well appreciate all the points that my hon. Friend makes, and she is absolutely right.

Mrs. Wise: Will the Minister accept that many shop workers are saying loud and clear, "You already take our Saturdays for work—you are not going to get our Sundays"? Will he further accept that shop workers will not believe any offers of protection which may be held out to them by the Government, who have a shocking record of stripping protection from shop workers in relation to wages, hours of work and other matters?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady should, in all conscience, recognise that the world has moved on since the clays of Mr. Polly and that in reality several million of our fellow citizens—including, I suspect, a good many of us—regularly have to work Sundays but that we manage to do so while having perfectly normal, decent and sensible family lives and being able to follow our religions. All retailers who advocate a change in the law say that it has never been difficult to find people willing to work on Sundays, particularly when supplements are paid.

Crime Statistics

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of crime in (a) England and Wales, (b) each member country of the European Community and (c) the United States of America.

Mr. John Patten: According to the recently published 1989 international survey of crime, the overall risk in England and Wales of being a victim of crime is a little below the average for western Europe and much lower for violent crime than in the rest of Europe. The risk is lower than in the United States, Canada and Australia. What matters to our citizens is, quite rightly, crime here.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show that high crime levels are a worldwide problem, and that we in Britain are tackling them more effectively than other countries? Does he acknowledge, however, that there is no cause for complacency here, particularly in the light of the disturbing and countrywide crime rate figures for the first three months of this year?

Mr. Patten: Those figures will probably not be published for another two weeks. No other part of Government expenditure has had more money devoted to it than the police, where there has been almost a 60 per cent. rise in expenditure in real terms in the past 10 years. There are 15,000 more men and women working in the police service, and with better equipment than ever before. Happily, the recent international survey to which I referred shows that confidence in the police is higher in this country than in any other western European country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be hosting a dinner in honour of Sir Sonny Ramphal, secretary-general of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Government establishing a Select Committee charged with the responsibility of examining the cost to the nation of the pledges and commitments made by Ministers and other hon. Members?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Ministers have to lay their estimates before the House and overall Government expenditure is given in the Autumn Statement, as is the detailed public expenditure survey ahead. It would be a good idea if other people making proposals for extra expenditure also had to lay their costings before the House—including Opposition Members, who recently made 80 new spending pledges in their new document.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning's decision by the Cabinet on the rail link to the channel tunnel means all the misery of prolonged planning

blight for the people of Kent, and is a betrayal of the economic and environmental interests of the whole country? When the Prime Minister looks at the problem, as she will have to do again, will she recognise that mixing public and private investment works well for the other countries of Europe, so why does she wish to prevent it from working for our country?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that clause 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 precludes subsidy for international travel, and the Labour party agreed to that clause at the time. Subsidy is therefore precluded. The joint venture was seeking nearly £2 billion of additional finance for Eurorail—£500 million in Government grant, extra British Rail investment of nearly £400 million, mainly in commuter services, and a £1 billion soft loan, on which repayment of interest or capital would not even start until the year 2010. As I have said, such subsidy was precluded by clause 42.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister so inflexible and myopic as not to understand what every community and every industrialist in Britain understands—that when circumstances change, a realistic Government should change their policy? When the French are already building their fast rail link, why is the Prime Minister not even planning ours?

The Prime Minister: That is another quick £2 billion, just like that. Yet the right hon. Gentleman claims to be responsible. It is absolute nonsense. In fact, nearly £2 billion of public investment has already been committed to tunnel-related transport services in our estimates and in expenditure. I will give the House the breakdown. We plan to spend £600 million on road schemes to allow access to the tunnel, and British Rail will invest more than £1·3 billion on passenger and freight services to and from the tunnel. That is legitimate expenditure and it is being made.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is seeking to mislead everyone again. Will she not admit that of the sum that she says is committed to railways, £1 billion will be paid for entirely by higher fares being charged to users of Network SouthEast, who already suffer grossly inadequate services at very high cost? Will she not also admit that none of that maintenance work—for that is what it is—begins to provide an alternative to the fast rail link that is necessary? I ask the right hon. Lady again: when other countries mix public and private investment to provide a proper modern international rail link, why is she preventing our people from having the same advantage?

The Prime Minister: The Government are making a greater investment in railways than there has been for 25 years. We have committed and are spending £2 billion of public investment on roads and railways to the channel tunnel. It is not maintenance—it is much more than that, if the right hon. Gentleman will care to look. Out of the blue and in the right hon. Gentleman's usual casual way, he has committed another £2 billion without costings—justifying the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed).

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought this afternoon to the plight of British hostages in the Lebanon? Would it not be helpful to their cause and to the peace process in the middle east if Britain and Syria were to patch up their quarrel and agree to resume diplomatic relations? Is it right that we should continue without proper representation in that very important country?

The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend will recall the very serious circumstances in which we broke off diplomatic relations with Syria, when we could have lost a whole aircraft full of people over London had the bomb that it was meant to carry gone off. There was complicity with the Syrian embassy in the attempted placing of a bomb on that aircraft, and we cannot ignore that. Any country that can exercise influence in achieving the release of hostages should exercise it. The taking and holding of hostages is totally uncivilised. We have publicly thanked Iran and Syria for the part that they played in achieving the release of American hostages. The central issue is the release of hostages that should not be held by any nation.

Mr. Ashdown: While the Prime Minister is on the subject of expenditure, does she realise that there cannot be any greater indictment of her Government's priorities than that they are prepared to contemplate spending £3,000 million saving their skins over the poll tax but cannot find one tenth of that sum to invest in a decent high-speed rail link for Britain's future?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman listens to any previous reply. We are precluded by legislation from spending on an international rail link. As to expenditure, we have already committed £2 billion to roads and railways to and from the channel tunnel. A statement will be made on the community charge, but I assume from the right hon. Gentleman's comment that he feels no sense of guilt about very high-spending local councils who put up their community charges to an enormous amount—most of them Labour or Liberal.

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the easing of tension between the Soviet Union, Lithuania and the other Baltic states? Does she agree that that welcome development has much to do with the steady pressure applied by the British Government—and other western Governments—to both sides? Will she continue to work hard to bring both sides together for a peaceful settlement in the Soviet Union and the Baltic states?

The Prime Minister: I discussed that problem with President Gorbachev and the Lithuanian Prime Minister, Mrs. Prunskiene, and we have frequently had questions about it in the House. Britain, the United States and other European countries have steadily made known our view that those states are entitled to independence and self-determination, and President Gorbachev has agreed to that.
It looked as though a real blockage was developing in relation to some of the semantics. That was a great tragedy, as obviously it is important to get practical talks and negotiations started. I believe that that is about to

happen, and it is a welcome development. Both sides are to be congratulated on removing the blockages, and I hope that the process comes to fruition.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Prime Minister tell us what replies she has given to those who petitioned her yesterday on behalf of people living in the Ravenscraig area?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, the position on Ravenscraig was governed by a statement made by British Steel. It undertook to keep the strip mill open until 1989, and that date has now been extended to 1991. As for the main mill, British Steel said in its prospectus that if it no longer had any use for the mill it would be offered to a private buyer; I do not think that the position has changed.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree with United States Secretary of State James Baker that the tension in the middle east is as high today as it was in 1967? Does she share his view that the conditions for talks with the Palestinians laid down by the new and extreme Israeli Government need to be changed? Can she assure the House that the British Government will do all that they can to support the American Government's efforts to start some form of talks without delay?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that my hon. Friend is correct. We are doing all that we can to persuade the new Israeli Government to start talks with representative Palestinian people. We are also joining others in pointing out that Soviet Jews who leave the Soviet Union—and we have urged for years that they should be allowed to leave—should not be settled in the occupied territories or in east Jerusalem. It undermines our position when those people are settled in land that really belongs to others.

Mr. Win Griffiths: What is the average rate of inflation in the European Community, excluding Britain? When does the Prime Minister expect British inflation to achieve the European average? Will she tell the House that it will not happen in October, and that Britain will therefore not join the exchange rate mechanism then, as it will not have met the conditions that she has laid down?

The Prime Minister: The average rate of inflation in the European Community is about 5 per cent. If Britain's figure were calculated on the same basis, it would be 6.5 per cent. The conditions for Britain's joining the ERM were laid down at Madrid, and they are precisely the same now.

Mr. Churchill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the socialist policies being foisted on Britain by Commissioner Papandreou, under the terms of the social charter, which requires employers to give a part-time employee all the perks and benefits available to full-time workers, will have a


devastating effect on employment and on Britain's 6 million part-time workers? Will my right hon. Friend continue to resist those job-destroying proposals?

The Prime Minister: rose—[Interruption.]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are to be answered by the Prime Minister and not by hon. Members on Benches below the Gangway.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend—the Commission talks in one breath about subsidiarity, and by

its actions puts on a whole new load of bureaucratic rules and regulations which are not needed, which would be highly damaging to those who work part-time and would put increasing costs on employers. What the Commission is proposing would be a barrier to jobs, a barrier to business, would cost a lot of women who want to work part-time their jobs, would mean increased national insurance contributions for those who work only a few hours a week, and generally would be damaging to business and people alike.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 JUNE and TUESDAY 19 JUNE—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1990 (Cm 1022).
At the end of Tuesday remaining stages of the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords].
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Caldey Island Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.
Resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 21 JUNE—Completion of remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 22 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the Government's proposals for the further consideration of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is scheduled to go into Committee on 19 June, as that will leave perhaps only 10 sitting days for consideration of a Bill of 60 clauses and seven schedules? It contains a controversial series of proposals, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, as it covers such issues as conveyancing, legal structures, licensing law, divorce law and the law on charities. Is not it clear that the Committee is unlikely to have sufficient time to give full and adequate consideration to all those important matters? Will the Leader of the House withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it in the next Session of Parliament, when the House will be more adequately able to consider all those important measures which affect so many aspects of life in Scotland?
Does it concern the Leader of the House that it is apparently becoming increasingly profitable for Ministers to fall out with the Prime Minister? Is not it time that the House had the opportunity to debate the increasing flow of former Cabinet Ministers into highly paid posts in recently privatised industries? That phenomenon is unlike anything that has ever happened before—[Interruption.]—for one thing, no other Government have privatised industry in the way that the Government have done. Secondly, no Ministers in previous Governments have been so closely involved with such a process as the Ministers in this Government have been. As there are rules governing the behaviour of civil servants, why should we not, in the public interest, have an opportunity to debate the matter in Governmen time? In the interests of the reputation of good government, I ask the Leader of the House to provide such an opportunity.
Has the Leader of the House seen the recently published study on urban prosperity in the European Community? It shows that the Government's policies for Britain's towns and cities are failing. Is he aware that only four British

towns and cities are included among the top 50 positions in the study: Brighton—Labour—Norwich—Labour—London—mainly Labour—and Edinburgh—Labour? Does not that show that it is nonsense for the Government to claim that Labour is not managing efficiently the affairs of our towns and cities?
Does not it also put a big question mark over the Government's proposals—that we shall soon have to find time to debate—to rate-cap authorities that are trying to administer many important policies that affect those who live in the towns and cities of this country? Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that when we come to consider the budgets of authorities that may be poll tax-capped we shall have ample opportunity to do so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to be in the House next week. That may explain the length of his interrogation this afternoon. As for the first matter that he raised, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is an important measure which is currently under consideration by the Standing Committee. I am advised that the Committee will so organise itself as to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall reflect on what he said
As for the appointment of former Ministers to the chairmanship of privatised companies, it ought to be clearly within the hon. Gentleman's recollection that it has never been the practice, under successive Governments of either party, to prevent former Ministers from accepting appointments in areas where they have expertise. It is difficult to see the distinction in principle between the appointments of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken and the appointments of, for example, Lord Robens as chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Marsh as chairman of British Rail, Lord Beswick as chairman of the British Aerospace Corporation and Lord Glenamara as chairman of Cable and Wireless. The only distinction is that they were appointed to the chairmanship of industries in the public sector that were a great deal less efficient than the privatised industries that are now available to the country.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, it is notable that a number of the cities to which he referred—for example, Edinburgh and Brighton—have had long periods of Conservative rule, which no doubt contributed to their present good condition. It is also notable that a number of cities in this country—I note, for example, London docklands at one end and Glasgow, the European city of culture, at the other—have undergone a positive revitalisation during the last 10 years, of which this country can be proud.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an Estimates Day, the second of the rare occasions when we have an opportunity to debate Select Committee reports. Moreover, after business questions the Secretary of State for Transport is to make an important statement. Therefore I shall allow business questions to run until 4.15. Hon. Members who are anxious to question the Secretary of State for Transport about his statement will, I hope, impose upon themselves a self-denying ordinance during business questions.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that on 29 March he said that such were the issues raised by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that the House should have the opportunity to arrive at its conclusions on a free vote. Can he now categorically tell us that that promise obtains for the rest of the Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Bill was introduced as a measure dealing with embryology and not with abortion issues. When it was introduced it was made clear that the key clause on research or no research, on which we offered alternatives, would be the subject of a free vote. When the possibility of the Bill's being widened to include abortion arose in the House, it was made clear, and still remains the position, that matters relating to embryo research or abortion that are matters of conscience will be subject to a free vote.
One matter on which it makes sense to invite the House, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, to conclude the debate, is whether we give the Bill a Third Reading. It was introduced as a Government Bill and will be the result of intense deliberation by the House on the questions urged upon it by my right hon. Friend and others, so it would be foolish for us to neglect passing the Bill on to the statute book when we have completed our considerations.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Regarding the proposed establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consult the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, following his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) last Thursday?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not yet taken that opportunity, but I shall bear in mind the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the House is pleased that he has responded to the Procedure Committee's report on European legislation with a White Paper? I congratulate him on that, but it is not enough; we need a debate. We have been promised a debate. Can he tell the House when that will be, and will he consider whether the debate should be on an affirmative motion and not simply a take-note motion?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have had a number of discussions with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope to announce a debate on the matter in the very near future. Of course, without commitment, I shall pay respect to his observations about the form of the debate.

Mr. James Wallace: Like the rest of us who observed the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, did the Leader of the House notice the Prime Minister's frustration that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 was tying her hands and undoubtedly preventing her from providing much-needed funds to the high-speed rail link? Given the fact that the Government have a large majority in the House and that such a measure would get a fair wind from the Opposition, will he set a day aside next week for a simple, one-clause Bill to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did not get the impression that that was the ambition of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If hon. Members wish to explore the matter in more detail, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will answer their questions.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend expect the embryo research and abortion clauses of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to be taken on the Wednesday or Thursday? Does he agree that, if there is any timetable problem about the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, the divorce provision could well be dropped?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The precise allocation of business will be for the Business Committee, but the hope is to divide the two topics between the two days.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House think again about his answer to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)? He is putting a three-line Whip on a Government Bill which deals with life issues. That has far wider implications than he has realised in terms of the Labour party's position on these matters. Will he please reconsider that decision and not proceed on that basis?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, I am glad to have the opportunity of disabusing the hon. Gentleman and the House of an entirely false impression about the way in which the Bill is being handled. First, it is not the function of the Leader of the House to prescribe whipping arrangements for either side of the House. Secondly, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary made it clear that matters relating to embryo research or abortion, that are matters of conscience, will be subject to an entirely free vote, as indeed they were. The only question on which there can sensibly be whipping is whether the House of Commons, having spent a great deal of time in orderly debate on the matter, should carry through to the statute book the result of that work. The first part of the Bill, which deals with embryology, is a Government Bill; the second part of the Bill is, in effect, a House of Commons Bill and it is not unreasonable to expect that Bill to be carried through to the statute book.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on the important subject of religious education in schools, bearing in mind the serious shortage of religious education teachers and the importance of teaching children the difference between right and wrong? That would also enable the apparently illegal syllabus in religious education of the former Ealing Labour council to be discussed and ordered to be changed. It does not mention God, the Bible or Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, which are required to be at the centre of this crucial subject.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend always has the skill to make his business question almost a mini-debate in itself. He has ventilated the subject with some skill.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate before 29 June on crowd safety at pop concerts? On that date, there is to be the biggest concert of the year, with more than 100,000 young people expected to hear such


aging figures as Paul McCartney and Elton John. We should at least be concerned to see that people are safe when they get there.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will be among the audience there. He would be a man of comparable vintage to the stars he has named. I cannot promise a debate on that topic in the near future.

Mr. John Bowis: I do not wish to overburden our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend fill the cup of London's happiness by bringing our right hon. Friend back shortly to make an announcement on the central London rail study, including the Hackney-Chelsea line, which we hope will come south of the river through Wandsworth, and on the public transport elements of the London assessment studies?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has answered questions on both topics in the fairly recent past. He may or may not be in a position to answer such questions this afternoon. If not, I am sure that my hon. Friend will find another opportunity of pressing him on both points.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the cash crisis facing the education service? Is he aware that many schools, including those in my constituency, are facing a cash crisis as a result of inadequate budgets under the local management scheme? Budgets are being returned, teachers are being threatened with the sack and there is a real danger of many schools literally running out of money before the end of the financial year. What are the Government doing to ensure that our children's education is not put in jeopardy in that way? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange an early debate so that the Secretary of State for Education and Science can be told of the reality facing many constituencies?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, recall that the amount of money per head being spent on children's education is now higher than at any time in the past. He will also remember that the change in school management was intended to secure—and will secure—increasingly efficient use of those resources to achieve the exact objectives he has in mind. He will find the point more elaborately explained in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the National Association of Head Teachers a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Allan Stewart: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on agreeing to reflect on what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said about the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? I speak as a member of the Committee on that Bill and as a supporter of the great majority of its provisions. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in light of the excellent speeches on Second Reading by my hon. Friends, the timetable for the Bill is unreasonable and that it would be far better if this important measure were considered next Session by reasonable people over a reasonable time and at reasonable hours?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am still hopeful that my hon. Friend—some of whose remarks I appreciate—will play his part in helping the Committee so to organise itself that it can complete its business in the present Session.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House consider my question last week on separating the poll tax orders that must be laid? I notice that they are not down for debate next week, so they could be put down for the week after. My understanding is that the orders may be brought together in two groups. That would be a negation of democracy, both centrally and locally. It would be a kick in the teeth for people such as those in my constituency, where the music centre has closed, 24 teachers have been sacked, two old people's homes have been closed and all the services have been cut. Is not it right for each order to be debated for an hour and a half in the House and for the House to make a decision on each?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not today announced any arrangements for debating charge capping. Any proposals on that matter are best left for discussions through the usual channels.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we have not had a debate for some time on the workings of the Foreign Office? Does he agree that the cost of the Foreign Office is very low, given the service that it performs? It has one: of the lowest votes of any Government Department. Its activities at home and abroad are vital to the country and I hope that they will not be curtailed in any way.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to endorse the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to the efficiency and importance of the Foreign Office. I am sure that, in due course, we shall have a debate on foreign affairs and that my hon. Friend will be able to repeat in more detail the glowing observations that he has made.

Mr. Dave Nellist: What are the chances of a statement next week on the stalled Cabinet review of the poll tax? I am happy to leave it entirely up to the Leader of the House to sort out whether such a statement should come from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment or from the Chancellor, but it would at least give 1·25 million people in Scotland and 10 million people in England and Wales the opportunity to discover precisely the sort of poll tax that we are not paying.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of any stalling of any review. My right hon. Friends' consideration of the operation of the community charge is proceeding in the ordinary fashion and the outcome will be disclosed in clue course.

Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any news to give us about when we may have the reform of the private Bill procedure and when the excellent recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure may be implemented?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope to be able to tell the House something more substantial about that next week.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House consider further the need for a statement on the


position of former Cabinet Ministers who have taken posts in private companies? One former Minister had dealings with a company—recently, while he was a Minister—and has now become its chairman. Is the Leader of the House aware that many people regard that as scandalous? We need guidelines for former Cabinet Ministers along the same lines as those for senior civil servants who leave the service, which have not been the subject of any controversy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat that it has never been the practice, under Governments of either party, to prevent former Ministers from accepting appointments. I repeat that there is a list of distinguished ex-Labour Ministers who have moved on to preside over nationalised companies, while others have taken jobs in the private sector.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Montreal protocol meetings, to be held in London and hosted by Her Majesty's Government, are likely to prove a crucial test of the true environmental policies of most major nations? Please may we have a debate on the subject before the meetings take place, so that the Government are aware of Back-Bench feelings?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that important subject at a particular time, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's question in mind.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Leader of the House accept that his twice-repeated assertion that the Standing Committee appointed to deal with the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill should "so organise itself" represents a dereliction of duty by the Government? The Government are demanding one of two things of the members of the Standing Committee: either we shall be faced with all-night sittings during June and July or we shall have severely to curtail discussions not only of the provisions of the Bill but of other aspects of law reform in Scotland that we may wish to raise under the long title.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake not only to have discussions through the usual channels but to meet representatives of the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats to discuss the implications of the Bill and the possibility of taking it away and introducing separate legislation in the next Session so that we can deal with these issues as they deserve to be dealt with?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be normal for me to engage myself in managing the procedures of this, that or any other Standing Committee, however important its work may be. I have already undertaken to reflect on the point that has been raised, but I maintain my belief, on the basis of the advice that I have received, that it should be possible for the Committee so to organise itself as to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House how long it would take to describe those qualifications which Lord Glenamara possessed before his appointment as chairman of Cable and Wireless? Is it really the case that he was not

able to distinguish one end of a cable from the other, either at the start or at the end of his term of office as chairman? Is not it a source of great satisfaction to my right hon. and learned Friend that the new chairman of Cable and Wireless has been appointed from the private sector and not by one of his right hon. Friends?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's observations are always entirely apt. It is a source of pleasure to Conservative Members, and more importantly it is a source of encouragement and benefit to the nation, that a competent chairman should be appointed to a privatised company of that kind. However, as we consider the proximity of experience, it is interesting to reflect that Lord Glenamara had been Postmaster-General before becoming chairman of Cable and Wireless.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 982 about the poll tax and the franchise which shows that there is a shortfall on the electoral register of 600,000 people as a result of the operation of the poll tax?
[That this House notes that under a universal franchise there has correctly been a close correlation between the numbers of people on electoral registers within Great Britain and the estimated equivalent population of those who are 18 years of age and over; is therefore shocked to discover that since the introduction of the poll tax and the interconnections that subsequently exist between electoral and poll tax registration, on the above basis there are over 600,000 people missing from the current and recently used local government electoral registers in Great Britain; further notes that under-registration, is unevenly distributed and that there are certain alarming pockets of non-registration including the parliamentary constituency of Finchley where the electorate fell by 4·6 per cent. between 1988 and 1989 and has fallen by a further 3·9 per cent. in the past year; also notes that the overall decline in electoral registration has not occurred in Northern Ireland where the poll tax has not been introduced; and therefore concludes that the poll tax is incompatible with the operation of a universal franchise and should be abolished forthwith because any attempts to amend its operation cannot overcome its fundamental characteristic which is one of undermining a universal franchise by placing a de facto tax on electoral registration.]
May we have a debate about the state of the franchise, and can that debate include concerns about expatriate votes so that a fraud squad can be set up to stop electoral fraud in this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements for the registration of expatriate votes were introduced and carried through the House with the express approval of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wants to amplify further upon the virtues of that provision, it has been arranged for him to have an Adjournment debate on the subject next Friday.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? This plea comes from the hon. Member of this House with more hours in Standing Committee than any other hon.


Member. My right hon. and learned Friend will realise that the distances that we travel and the size of our constituencies place enormous demands on Scottish Members. Consequently, those of us who wish to debate that important measure properly, fully and adequately, believe that there is not enough time left to do so.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the House will be able to judge how far to acknowledge and hail my hon. Friend as the Stakhanovite of the Scottish Standing Committee. I will continue to reflect, with his encouragement, as I have already undertaken to reflect after the encouragement of other hon. Members.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that we are to have a debate on defence on Monday and Tuesday? As things are moving very fast, particularly in Europe, and as the estimates White Paper is now really dated, and as we understand that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been devilling away in the Ministry of Defence and has produced his own defence review, would it not be in the interests of the House for that to be published and available to all hon. Members so that we can debate the subject adequately and anticipate the cuts to be made by the Government before the Opposition make their own cuts?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is a little impatient and is trying to make now the speech that he wants to make in next Monday's or Tuesday's debate. He will have an opportunity to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in next week's debate.

Mr. Michael Shersby: In the business statement last week, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he hoped shortly to be able to announce a date for a debate on the Police (Amendment No. 2) Regulations. As he has not announced a date today, when does he expect to do so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can confirm that in my next business statement I will announce specific proposals for a debate on those regulations.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement regarding matters at Coulport and Faslane? More than 40 men have been denied security passes, and one of my constituents, who is completely innocent of any security breach, has been denied a job and been made unemployed for more than six weeks. That man is desperate to resume working not only for this country but for his family. Will the Secretary of State come to the House and make a statement on that appalling state of affairs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly cannot promise a statement on the matter. The Defence Secretary will be top for questions on Tuesday of next week as well as taking part in the defence debate on two days of next week.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). He will be aware that the Government earned great respect for the arrangements that they made for the Human

Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware also that the Government earned great gratitude not only in the House but in the country. Whichever side wins, if there is not a free vote on a Bill that will contain provisions that may be deeply repugnant to the wishes of hon. Members, the respect that the Government have so justly won will be needlessly jeopardised.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her tribute to the way in which we have been able to organise that debate. That fortifies me in the conviction that, having been able to organise it with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, it is important that the conclusions of such a wide-ranging debate, which were clearly the outcome of very careful deliberation by a large number of hon. Members, should be placed on the statute book if possible.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the Leader of the House aware that I share the deep concern that was expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the Commitee proceedings on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? I ask that question because, if the Bill were passed with sensible amendments, we could provide for major developments in child care law in Scotland, especially the provision of treatment of victims of physical and sexual abuse. Although I want no delay in the enactment of such legislation, it requires deliberate and careful concern and scrutiny. I again ask the Leader of the House to take on board the concern that was expressed today.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have nothing further to add to what I have already said on that topic.

Mr. Richard Alexander: With further reference to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, has my right hon. and learned Friend had time to read clause 46? If he has, as a lawyer he will have seen that it proposes to give the police greater powers of entry to registered clubs than they already have for public houses. May I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that there is no evidence that that clause should have been introduced and that there is great concern that such a provision might subsequently be introduce in England?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether business questions is the best time to offer me advice on the contents of a Scottish Bill. In so far as my hon. Friend's observation was valid, I shall try to take note of it.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time to review the legislation relating to the protection of historic monuments and our country's heritage? I am deeply concerned that the 12th-century St. Quentin castle at Llanblethian near Cowbridge, which is an area that is familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Leader of the House, is in danger of being lost for ever because the landowner is using current legislation to run rings around the Welsh Office. The latest proposals to protect that monument are the eighth since 1974. If we do not take action, we shall lose that monument and, I am sure, other historic monuments throughout the country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sufficiently conscious of the value and importance of Llanblethian castle. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Many hon. Members use St. Stephen's entrance to gain access to the Houses of Parliament. St. Stephen's Hall and Central Lobby are often crowded with visitors and, welcome though those visitors are, they none the less sometimes get in the way. In the past few months when coming in to attend Divisions I have collided twice with members of the public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at whatever arrangements there are to ensure that hon. Members have unhindered and unencumbered access to this place?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it difficult to judge imediately the relative importance of my hon. Friend's access to the House and his continued contact with the electorate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on the procedures to be adopted when debating the Government's response to Procedure Committee's report on EEC legislation, does the Leader of the House agree that a vote to approve such a response would not give him the opportunity to choose those aspects on which he will table amendments and would decide holus bolus on all its proposals? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many hon. Members will be grateful for the fact that no fewer than 10 motions on the Orders of the Day relate to EEC documents, some of which are due to be considered in Committee? Will the Leader of the House tell us which orders will be considered in Committee next week.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the advice offered by the hon. Gentleman and, in so far as it differs from the advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I shall reflect all the more enthusiastically on both pieces of advice. I shall try to meet the hon. Gentleman's request in relation to his second point in one way or another, but I cannot undertake to do so precisely in the way that he asked.

Mr. Michael Latham: As the whole of tomorrow may be taken up with the second debate this week on the dreary subject of the Common Market, rather on the much more interesting subject of Church and state, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a debate next week on the subject of the Church and its relations with the state?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the somewhat frustrated way in which my hon. Friend expresses himself, having drawn the debate that is likely to take second place tomorrow. He may find that his expectations are not entirely unrewarded, but I cannot give him any promise in that respect.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on Lord Justice Salmon's report on the standard of conduct in public life, which was made to the House in 1978 and is still waiting for a debate? We could link that to the standard of conduct of Cabinet Ministers who take part in and vote on legislation but then line their pockets with lucrative jobs, leading companies that have been privatised. Many people regard that as outrageous

and scandalous. The Government could then invoke any criticism that they might have and Opposition Members could invoke their criticisms of the way in which former members of the Tory Government have continuously abused their positions by gaining jobs for the boys which are lucrative beyond the dreams of most people in this country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I come back precisely to the point that former Labour Ministers, of whom the hon. Gentleman was once one—[Interruption.]—incidentally, it is astonishing to look back on that—have all taken such jobs and there is no significant difference in principle.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend help the House by stating whether he is contemplating guillotining any part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend has omitted to recollect that the two days' proceedings next week are taking place under the terms of the timetable motion that was commended on most sides of the House some months ago.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Well, then, let us have a debate on outside earnings generally. Let us talk about pensioners, disabled people and others who are on means-tested benefits and who, if they earn any money from outside employment, lose those means-tested benefits in line with the extra money that they have made. If those pensioners and others have to lose money because they are making money through another form of employment, that rule should apply to those ex-Cabinet Ministers, of any Government, who are lining their pockets as a result of the job that they held. If ex-Cabinet Ministers cannot make ends meet on £26,000 per year, that is a poor lookout for the pensioners and others who have to struggle every week.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the hon. Gentleman's phraseology, let us have a debate, but not in the form of a speech at business questions. He might have the opportunity of raising the topic during the next Opposition Supply day.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Great anger has been generated by the school transfer procedure chaos in my constituency and, indeed, elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister provide time next week to debate that vital issue so that justice can be done for many boys and girls who have been denied a grammar school place as a result of the new system?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Justice in this matter is as important in North Down as in every other part of the kingdom. I cannot promise to offer an opportunity for a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The Leader of the House will be aware that the English law reform proposals were contained in a separate Bill whereas the Scottish proposals were lumped along with licensing, divorce and other matters. With his Back-Bench Members in revolt, does it not strike the right hon. and learned Gentleman as odd that in order to get the Bill through he might have to use Tory Members who sit for English seats to crush Labour Members who sit for Scottish seats?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There will be no question of anyone crushing any hon. Members in any way on the matter. I hope that a reasoned and well-ordered debate will take the matter to its conclusion.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer back to the exchanges that took place during Prime Minister's Question Time about the creation of a new Select Committee? Given that the number of spending commitments made by the Labour party appears to have declined from 140 before the last general election to 81, will my right hon. and learned Friend speculate on how many spending commitments there would be in the next Labour manifesto if they won the coming election and whether they would include a commitment not to staff the boards of nationalised industries with former Labour Ministers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I could speculate usefully on that question.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to finding time for a debate next week on the implementation of the Shops Act 1950? Perhaps he would be good enough to read the extracts from Home Office Question Time to find out what the Home Secretary said about implementation and the difficulties that we face? I gathered—I have checked to find out whether it is true—that he was giving licence to B and Q and others who have threatened to continue to open on Sundays, despite a case that was resolved in Cwmbran magistrates court only on Monday of this week. It is necessary to ensure that Ministers, who are here to uphold the law, as we are here to make it, should not encourage B and Q to break the law. We are continually told by the Prime Minister that we should not blatantly break the law by striking or deciding not to pay the poll tax. Why is protection given to B and Q and others who blatantly break the Shops Act 1950?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman referred to the case in Cwmbran magistrates court. He will be aware that there has been another case in the High Court. Taken together, those cases illustrate the problems associated with the present unsatisfactory state of the law on Sunday trading. He will also be aware that the Government invited the House to accept legislation that would have removed many of the difficulties. That was not acceptable to the House. The Government's position remains clear. We are prepared to consider alternative methods of reform which are likely to be acceptable to all who are interested and concerned The difficulty so far has been finding exactly that balance.

Channel Tunnel (Rail Services)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the proposals for a new high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel.
The opening of the tunnel in 1993 will provide a major new business opportunity for Britain and for British Rail. Let me first dispel any doubts that we intend to invest in the infrastructure required to service the tunnel fully from the day that it opens. For British Rail, investment in tunnel services will be the largest that it has undertaken this century—more than £1 billion on passenger and freight services. Orders have already been placed for a common fleet of high-speed passenger trains, owned jointly by the British, French and Belgium railway companies, that will link London to Paris in three hours and to Brussels in two and three quarter hours. In addition to the half-hourly services between those three capitals, BR plans through trains from the regions offering 3 million seats a year.
Work has started on improving the track between London and Folkestone and on the new passenger terminal at Waterloo. Last month I announced approval for new electric freight locomotives that will haul channel tunnel freight at speeds just as high as those on the continent. More than two thirds of rail freight to the tunnel will come from outside the south-east and BR is planning through services and freight depots throughout the country. We plan to spend more than £600 million on tunnel-related road schemes, which is about the same amount as the French Government. When the channel tunnel treaty was signed, we undertook that BR would meet the demand for passenger and freight services when the tunnel opened, and those commitments are being fulfilled.
The railway investments will cater for demand in 1993 and for several years thereafter. In the case of freight, there is ample capacity in the south-east outside the commuter peaks. However, all the traffic forecasts show that growth in demand for international rail passenger services and domestic commuter services will eventually outgrow the capacity of the present system. That is why we asked British Rail to examine how best to increase that capacity when the time came. We made it clear that the investment in international services would have to be commercially justified, just as it would be in ferry, in air or in other competing services.
Last November, British Rail selected Eurorail from a field of eight private consortia, and announced its intention to pursue the possibility of forming a joint venture to operate the international services and to construct a new line. Since then, it has identified measures that substantially improve the commercial prospects of the international passenger business. Despite those improvements, the forecasts submitted by the joint venture showed that its costs were likely to exceed its income by a wide margin. To meet that gap, the joint venture first required a capital grant of £500 million towards the use of the line by commuter services. Secondly, British Rail would need to invest up to £400 million, mainly in commuter terminals. Thirdly, it proposed a low-interest deferred loan of £1 billion, which in the case of default would rank below all other creditors.
I have given careful consideration to the case for a capital grant. We have never ruled out capital grants for improvements in commuter services where they are justified on cost-benefit grounds. I made that clear in the new objectives that I published for British Rail last year. The new line would indeed bring significant benefits to commuter services, but unfortunately the benefits to commuters were not sufficient to justify both the investment by Network SouthEast of £400 million in its own facilities and grant of £500 million towards the use of the new line.
The loan of £1 billion represents public investment already made in international rail services up to 1993, and taken over by the joint venture. The joint venture would get the benefit of that expenditure, but would not make any repayments or pay any interest until 2010. The House will now recognise that the total sums of public expenditure involved are far greater than the £350 million that has been widely but erroneously reported. In the event of cost overruns, the political reality would be that there would be great pressure on the Government to increase their already substantial contributions. I have therefore informed the parties that the proposals that they have made are unacceptable.
In the light of that, British Rail and Eurorail have agreed that there is not a basis for carrying forward the project in the private sector at this stage. The Government remain very grateful to Eurorail for the considerable effort it has put into the development of the proposals, and for the expertise it has shown. BR has informed me that it will continue to work with Eurorail in the development of international services.
The financial case for a new line will improve as demand for travel grows. I have discussed this with BR's new chairman, and British Rail remains eager to proceed as soon as the project is viable. How soon this will be depends, among other things, on the benefits the new line can bring to commuters.
I have already approved investment of more than £400 million on new rolling stock and improved infrastructure for services on the north Kent lines. British Rail has plans for further rolling stock investments of £300 million to £400 million for the rest of the Kent commuter services. That will radically improve the services from Kent.
If demand continues to grow, even more capacity may eventually be needed and British Rail and Eurorail have shown that a new line could transform the slow commuter services from north and mid-Kent by halving journey times. I am not yet satisfied, however, that they have found the best solution and I am therefore asking British Rail to complete its studies with the aim of maximising the benefits to international passengers and commuters alike.
This further work will concentrate on the options for the route from the North Downs to Waterloo and King's Cross, with its efficient connections to the rest of the country. I have considered carefully the views expressed in the House and elsewhere about alternative routes. On the face of it, they are unlikely to be better financially than the Eurorail proposal or to offer a better deal for commuters.
But the new chairman of British Rail is determined to satisfy himself on that and has commissioned a report by consultants on the proposals for routes to King's Cross via Stratford. There seems to be general agreement that any

service will need to terminate at King's Cross. In our view, nothing in this statement invalidates the benefits to British Rail of the House proceeding with the King's Cross Bill.
A major civil engineering project of this kind, through this densely populated part of England, is bound to cause great concern to the people who live there. We owe it to them to minimise the uncertainty and to see that, where they suffer financial loss, there is proper compensation. Between the North Downs and the channel tunnel there is now broad agreement on the right corridor for the new line and considerable effort has been put into designing an environmentally acceptable route.
There will need to be further consultations on the engineering details and a full environmental report will be published. But I am satisfied that it would now be right to safeguard that section of the route by planning directions. I therefore propose to consult British Rail and the local authorities about that. British Rail's compensation scheme will continue to apply to the whole of the route published in September 1989.
I began by confirming our commitment to invest in the infrastructure needed to make sure that we reap the benefits of the channel tunnel when it opens in 1993. I have also explained how we propose to carry forward the work needed to plan for increases in capacity. Some argue for vast and premature expenditure that would not be economically justified. International rail services are certainly of growing importance, but there are many other needs for improvements in transport infrastructure, including better public transport services within Britain, improved motorways, better access to airports and ports and better air traffic control.
The Government's aim is a balanced transport policy which allocates investment where it will bring the greatest benefit. Within that framework, we have approved the largest railway investment programme for over 25 years, the largest underground programme for over 20 years, an increase in the road programme and approaching £2 billion worth of investment in the infrastructure to serve the channel tunnel. I commend these policies to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: Today is a sad and bad day for Britain, for it is the culmination of months of indecision caused by the Government's lack of strategic planning, which means that Britain will enter the 21st century with an inadequate 19th-century railway link. We are to spend about £1 billion of British Rail money over four years, compared with the French, who will spend £1 billion every year for the next 20 years to extend their far superior high-speed rail network. That is the result of the Government's anti-rail, anti-passenger attitude. It will condemn Britain to the economic periphery of Europe and ensure that Britain suffers serious disadvantages in the single market after 1992.
Britain's prestige has been damaged. It will not join Europe's fast developing high-speed rail system this century. The decision represents the worst of all worlds. It perpetuates the continuing worries of planning problems, environmental blight and wasteful congestion in the south-east, while denying the economic advantages for Scotland, Wales and the northern and midland industrial regions. That emphasises the Government's isolation in failing to grasp the strategic importance of high-speed, 200 mph plus, railway systems.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite his and the Prime Minister's fancy fiddling with figures on the


public cost, contested by Eurorail, the Government are expected to provide approximately £400 million out of the total project cost of £3 billion? Is that not in line with the Government's policy of using small amounts of public money to generate far larger private finance and provide transport infrastructure, which is precisely the way the European high-speed rail networks in Europe have been financed?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there has been unnecessary and intolerable delay in the decision to construct the channel tunnel rail link due to the Government's interference—forcing British Rail to seek a private partner, without insisting that the matter be open to tender? Why was it not put to competitive tender, which is exactly what British Rail must now do three years later?
Is it not true that the Prime Minister, because of her fears of the residents of Kent before the 1989 Kent county council elections, rightly promised extensive tunnelling to limit the environmental damage? However, she did not say where the money would come from, thus turning a profitable project into an unprofitable one. By putting her party's electoral concerns before the long-term interests of Britain, the Prime Minister has condemned the people of Kent to another decade of uncertainty and blight.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the extra £1 billion will not increase the line capacity in the south-east network, where some trains will be restricted to 50 mph in some places, and be paid for by the passengers? Does he believe that an extra 16 million channel tunnel passengers can travel on the existing, most congested, Network SouthEast, and not effect commuter lines?
Will the Secretary of State establish—he should seriously consider this—a committee of experts to examine all the available route options, as I suggested eight months ago? He rejected that then because it would cause delay. Such a committee could review all the technical details and report in about six months, allowing the Government to make a political decision about the route of a future high-speed line.
While such a review was under way, would the Secretary of State reconsider his objection to my proposal to abolish section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and take into account the aviation and shipping concerns that were considered at that time—especially as the Government have given nearly £50 million in section 8 grants since 1980 to the rail freight industry, including to its international services, and a subsidy, on the ground of environmental protection. That is exactly the same reason that now demands that public money be provided for the channel tunnel rail link.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the European Commissioner's statement on Monday 4 June that, once there was a demand from the British authorities, the Commission would look "favourably and positively" at a request for financial assistance, such as that given to other countries to help construct channel tunnel rail links? I hope that the Secretary of State will not continue to block the European infrastructure fund, which could assist us in that development.
Does not the Secretary of State accept that the failure to break the ideological logjam preventing the use of public money will mean that the Tory Government will go down in history as the Luddites of Europe for failing to join the technological revolution in high-speed rail travel and for failing to be aware of the need for a transport policy that actively requires Government involvement?
Labour is committed to a high-speed dedicated rail route from the channel tunnel to London, and beyond to Scotland, to relieve congestion on our overburdened roads and in our overcrowded skies, guarantee environmental protection, and give maximum economic advantage and support to British industry to enable it to compete successfully in the European markets of the 21st century.

Mr. Parkinson: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in the order in which he raised them. He spoke with amazement about the fact that the French Government are planning to invest £1 billion a year in their rail system.

Mr. Prescott: In each of the next 20 years.

Mr. Parkinson: We are planning to spend more than that—£3·7 billion in the next three years, with a continuing programme to follow.

Mr. Prescott: Of what size?

Mr. Parkinson: We are spending more than the French.
The hon. Gentleman keeps repeating the ridiculous canard that the regions will be denied access to freight. If he had listened to the statement instead of repeating, parrot fashion, his prejudices, he would have heard me answer that point. I said that the freight trains are ordered, the depots are being decided, and that there will be through freight services from the regions to meet 70 per cent. of the demand—70 per cent. of the freight capacity of the tunnel. The regions will have the most modern electric freight trains, running at the same speeds as continental trains. Will the hon. Gentleman please stop repeating the nonsense about the regions in some way being at a disadvantage?
The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when I spoke about the costs involved. I have seen the directors of Eurorail, and these figures are entirely agreed by them. There is a demand not for £400 million overall, but for a grant of £500 million, a deferred loan that would rank below any other creditors of more than £1 billion, and investment by British Rail of another £400 million. To support the project, Eurorail is asking for £1,900 million. Will the hon. Gentleman please take an arithmetic lesson and start revealing the facts?
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Government are delaying the channel tunnel. As he knows, we are getting on with the job of being able to service the tunnel from the day on which is is opened, and huge sums are being invested. There is no shortatge of capacity for freight. The blockage is not due to problems in getting freight to the tunnel; the capacity of the tunnel itself is limited.
I expect the tunnel to be fully used. If it were a port now, its capacity would make it our 12th biggest port. Clearly we cannot direct all our plans towards servicing the tunnel; most freight will not go anywhere near it, but will leave the country by the traditional routes.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about £1 billion of capacity. In his own muddled fashion—I observed that he confused the Leader of the Opposition as well; that is a more difficult job, by which I intend no compliment to the Leader of the Opposition—again mixed up fares with investment. The £1 billion that is being invested in capacity in the south-east comes from British Rail, not the customers.
I have no interest in the hon. Gentleman's committee of available experts——

Mr. Prescott: Twit.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman should stop talking about himself: it is a very bad habit.
I have no interest in the hon. Gentleman's committee of available experts, and nor has the House. These decisions are for Government, who are answerable to Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 42. I hope that he has told his friend Sam McCluskie that subsidies will be given to the competitors—to the union that sponsors him. The hon. Gentleman used to argue forcefully for section 42; now he denies it.
The other night we saw the hon. Gentleman's piece de resistance on television. He was explaining to a bemused world that if only Britain sanctioned the European infrastructure fund the freight could be paid for—[Interruption.] I have read the transcript. It is there—all £15 billion of it. The infrastructure fund is likely to be £80 million for all the 12 members of the Community. The hon. Gentleman's plans would involve pre-empting that for 175 years, assuming that our Community colleagues were happy to see us subsidising our rail. Like the rest of his ideas, this is half baked, ill thought out and economically illiterate.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. So that I can call as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible, I ask for single questions today. If by chance a double question is asked, it would help me greatly if the Secretary of State would answer only one part of it.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that participation in any joint venture must depend on the terms? To those who listened carefully to what he said this afternoon, it is clear that those terms are far less favourable than has been suggested in the press, and would be unfavourable to the Government in relation to private investors. That being so, does he agree that it is right to examine alternatives—as this plan is obviously not a starter—and, meanwhile, to protect the interests of those affected by possible blight along the route?

Mr. Parkinson: That is precisely what the Government are seeking to do.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East dismisses the £2 billion of taxpayers' investment—which would not get any return until the year 2010, if then—as if it is something that is easily dished out. I happened to talk to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—the shadow Chancellor—who told me that he has only two commitments: on pensions, and on child benefit. We can only assume that the hon. Gentleman's plans are pie in the sky.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in the north-west are under the impression that the channel tunnel is something for the south-east, and that the south-east will benefit? Is he further aware that, if freight is to use the channel tunnel, we must ensure that there are proper facilities in the Greater Manchester area, part of which I have the privilege to represent? We have been waiting for a decision for nearly a year about the depot in Guide Bridge, in my constituency.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, I recognise the importance of through

services to the regions. As I said in my statement, we plan to have 3 million seats a year from the regions going through the tunnel. In addition, we plan that 70 per cent. of the freight which goes through the tunnel will come from the regions. The trains are ordered, and the equipment is ordered. They will be fast electric trains—one of the most modern type of freight train in the world. I recognise the need for British Rail to make a decision about the location of its cargo depots, and I shall press it again on that matter.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Given that my right hon. Friend has warmly welcomed concern for the densely populated parts of Kent, which will be affected by the British Rail route, will he accept how grateful we are to learn that alternatives, such as that which would affect six houses only between Ashford and the Kent boundary, are to be properly and fully assessed? Can he set our minds at rest by stating that, when he says that the existing route in Kent is to be safeguarded, that is not pre-empting the chairman's study of the alternatives?

Mr. Parkinson: I can confirm that it is not pre-empting that study, but is a means of ensuring that compensation is available to help the people who are directly threatened, or who feel threatened. It does not rule out consideration of the alternatives.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State now tell us the Government's policy on when there will be a high-speed rail link to reach all over the country from the entrance to the channel tunnel, and when people in London and the south-east will be relieved of the congestion, which will increasingly choke roads and railways, as a result of the announcement that he has made this afternoon?

Mr. Parkinson: Peak periods are the problem for Network SouthEast. There is plenty of capacity off-peak, which is why freight does not represent a problem, and why the search is for extra passenger capacity. Another misunderstanding is that people feel that, because we are not going ahead immediately with the link, they will have to change trains and come to London to get to the tunnel. Services from the regions will go direct, bypassing London. If one wants to go to France and go through Paris to somewhere else, one will have to change trains there. There will be direct links from the tunnel to all the regions of Britain, and that will not be the case in France, which disappoints people.
I saw the amusing cartoon by Jak yesterday, showing the TGV pulling up and a tram waiting for it. The trains are in an identical pool, which will be owned jointly by all the railway companies. The trains which leave Paris will be the trains which arrive in Edinburgh, and vice versa.

Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement today has profound implications for those people with homes close to existing routes to London from the channel tunnel? Is he also aware that those people face totally inadequate provisions in the noise insulation and compensation arrangements? Will he carry out a fresh examination of their position, because as a result of this announcement, for the foreseeable future, they will have the full weight of freight and passenger rail traffic going past their homes?

Mr. Parkinson: I recognise that that is a problem, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that what he is suggesting has huge implications, because it is a long-established principle that if traffic increases on existing roads and railways there is no entitlement to compensation. If a road is widened—as we are proposing to do to many motorways—it is effectively a new road and it is treated as such. I realise that what my hon. Friend says poses a real problem, and, without making promises, I will consider it carefully.

Mr. Graham Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today will be greeted with great dismay in the east midlands and many other regions of England, Wales and Scotland? In Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Loughborough and all the other towns and cities along the east midlands main line, people are waiting desperately for electrification of the line. Does it not show the Government's lack of ambition, when the Spanish are tearing up their lines and replacing the whole gauge, the Germans are putting in two more north-south lines and the French are electrifying every last chicken shack in France? However, we are not prepared to invest in a high-speed rail link through London which would benefit the regions. Is not the reason that he is doing that to save money for the general election kitty rather than ensuring that we are all in a position to contribute to ending our trade problems with our continental competitors?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was asking a serious question, and I am tempted not to give him an answer. There is no reason for dismay. The regions will be well served to the tunnel from the day that it opens. We are talking about creating capacity that will be needed at the turn of the century and later, so the announcement today should do nothing to dismay those people who take a real interest, unless they are like the hon. Gentleman, who is professionally dismayed.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, for two reasons. First, it closes the door on British Rail's ill-conceived and extravagant proposals; and, secondly, it opens the door for consideration of alternatives which offer an economically viable, operationally effective and environmentally acceptable route. Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge all concerned to proceed with all speed to consider the alternatives, because until a firm route is defined blight and anxiety will hang over many communities?

Mr. Parkinson: As far as we have been able to do so, we have attempted to minimise those problems, and that is why I announced that the compensation scheme will remain in existence for the 1989 declared line. I have little to add to what I said in my statement. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. Alternative routes are being seriously considered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Secretary of State accept that this is a very important matter, not only for the south-east but for the north of England as a whole? Does he appreciate that a high-speed passenger line across Kent will improve journey times to the north and provide increased capacity for fast through international trains, thus reducing congestion on passenger and freight trains alike? Will he now urgently

meet the North of England Regional Consortium to discuss the question of the channel tunnel and the needs of the north?

Mr. Parkinson: I am a northerner myself, and I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I repeat what I said earlier in my statement. There will be scope for 3 million passengers to travel from the regions to the tunnel, which is the capacity which will be created when the tunnel is opened. The freight service will be second to none. Freight trains are ordered. I think that I broke some news to the hon. Gentleman the other day when I told him that the TGV was not a freight train, as he has visions of 10,000 tonnes of steel hurtling round France at 300 mph, which would be not a train but a missile at that speed. There is a speed limit on freight train speeds, but in this country they move faster and the limit is higher than in most other countries. We will have modern equipment travelling at comparable speeds, and there is plenty of capacity.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the mercy killing of British Rail's white elephant, and for rejecting the bull-at-a-gate approach of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). As my right hon. Friend has assured me that services for passengers and freight by rail from the channel tunnel will cope with demand for many years ahead, I commend the consultants' study, which considers the alternatives in detail. Can he assure us in Kent that protection of our environment will be given the highest priority? Will he ensure that the access across the north downs to the west will not be fixed so that there will be flexibility about the point where any route, if it were necessary, should pass across the downs?

Mr. Parkinson: The Eurorail proposal suggested that there should be some modifications at that point. That, together with the other alternatives, will be considered. Our determination to protect the environment has led to an enormous increase in the cost of the line. I discussed the relative costs a couple of weeks ago with my French colleague. The French drive their railway lines through open country. There is not a single tunnel or cutting on the whole of the line from Lyons to Paris. We, however, have to take the vast proportion of the line in tunnel from Folkestone to London. We have difficult problems to overcome. We recognise that there are special problems in Kent, and we must protect the environment.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State said that there is general agreement that the line should terminate at King's Cross. That is not the case. Those of us who live in the north-west expect to be able to move our freight around London at speed, but there is no evidence that that will happen. We also expect the Secretary of State to encourage British Rail to establish a minimum of two freight depots in the north-west; otherwise, the region will find it difficult to compete with European firms.

Mr. Parkinson: I recognise that the hon. Lady's concern is genuine, but it is ill founded. The proposals are not pipedreams of the kind we heard about from her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Orders have been placed and trains and rolling stock have been designed to allow for the fact that our tunnels are smaller than theirs, which means that we need lower bogies. All that work is in hand to ensure that the


regions, from which we expect 70 per cent. of the freight to come, have a good service with modern trains running at comparable speeds to those on the continent.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Bearing in mind that Bristol is nearer to Dover than it is to Penzance, does my right hon. Friend's welcome assurance that there will be electrified through services from the regions mean that they will operate to the centre of the south-west region, which is between Exeter and Plymouth? By not going to Bristol, which is only spuriously considered to be in the south-west, I hope that my right hon. Friend does not imagine that that will satisfy people?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend knows that there are special problems in the south-west. Arrangements, however, are being made for both passengers and freight, from the south-west and also from Wales, which I hope will prove satisfactory.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State is hardly covering himself with glory in the way that he is arranging for a high-speed link. We are not surprised that the first set of proposals has fallen down. It provides the Secretary of State with a wonderful opportunity to look at the other better and cheaper proposals that are available which go through Stratford. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will give careful consideration to those proposals? Instead of getting complaints from his Back Benchers, if he comes to Stratford the local authority will welcome him with open arms.

Mr. Parkinson: I made it clear in my statement that those alternatives are being considered. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that even the Ove Arup proposal is being modified to go through from Stratford to King's Cross, since most people recognise that King's Cross is a vital hub.

Mr. David Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who seems to have got it absolutely right from the point of view of the Dover constituency. Will he confirm my understanding that the improvements to the A2 and A20 that have been announced will take place, that the commuter services to Dover and other parts of Kent will be improved as a result of the announcement, and that the money will continue to be spent on them? Will he also confirm my understanding that section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 will be preserved and that the jobs of ferry workers in Dover will therefore be safe and secure? Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Opposition want to do away with——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked three questions.

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, we are going ahead with the improvements to the roads to which he referred and which we have announced. We shall be investing substantial sums in roads. Half the capacity of the tunnel is designed to carry vehicles. The shuttles that will carry vehicles will take half the capacity; the other half will be shared between passengers and freight. That is why there is a limit on the amount of freight that can go through the tunnel.

I certainly hope and expect that the tunnel will be fully used, but the limitation is the size of the tunnel—not the problem of getting freight to the tunnel.

Mr. Tony Banks: Bluster and abuse will not cover the Secretary of State's acute embarrassment this afternoon. I warned the then Secretary of State for Transport at a meeting in his room on 19 December 1988 that, unless the Government took political action and a hand in the way the whole matter was being considered, they would eventually be put in an embarrassing position. Will the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that, when British Rail looks at the options, it will consider not only the Ove Arup route but also the Bechtel route? I hope that it will not do what it did on the last occasion and just take a cursory glance at the options. I hope that it will carry out a proper examination of the options and that it will not carry out any developments at Stratford that would shut out any of the other options.

Mr. Parkinson: During the course of his remarks the hon. Gentleman was rather more agitated than I am. I made it clear in my statement that we think that the other routes are likely to be even less viable, but the new chairman wants to be totally satisfied. That is why he has commissioned independent consultants to look at all the proposals, so on this occasion I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Keith Speed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement poses more questions than it provides answers? I refer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) that there will be a massive intensification of passenger and freight traffic Folkestone-Ashford-Maidstone-London and Folkestone-Ashford-Tonbridge-London. Unless we change the primary legislation, the Land Compensation Act 1973, there will be no compensation and no environmental protection for the millions of people who live alongside those two routes. If there were to be such a change, massive public expenditure would be involved to protect them. My right hon. Friend is condemning many of my constituents, and others, on the routes between Kent and London to great disturbance over the next 10 or more years.

Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friend know that the proposal that we are discussing today is about passengers; the Eurorail proposal was about passengers. The freight arrangements are unchanged as a result of my announcement. I know that the Network SouthEast lines will be more busy. Freight capacity is there, but there will be a shortage of passenger capacity. I note what my hon. Friend said about blight. We have done our best to minimise blight. I shall take note of the need to consider compensation, but I make no promise.

Miss Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State has created even more concern and confusion about what was already a muddled situation. Where does he propose the railway line should go around London? Just where exactly are these tracks around London? If there are alternatives, why is there any need for the huge monstrosity of a


terminal that is being built at Waterloo which the people of Waterloo do not want and which is unnecessary if the new route is to serve all regions?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady is adopting a very blinkered view. The channel tunnel is to open in 1993. A fast link would not be available before 1998 at the earliest—probably not before the turn of the century. Waterloo will therefore be the main London terminal for the foreseeable future. That is why the redevelopment of Waterloo is under way.

Sir David Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend undertake regularly to re-evaluate the position as more concrete evidence becomes available as to the potential revenue to be earned by British Rail from the operation of the high-speed link?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, we shall. British Rail expects the case for the line to become stronger as demand develops. It will be kept under constant review.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be widespread anger in Newcastle tonight because our hopes for King's Cross will have been smashed for the foreseeable future? Have the special passenger trains that will be necessary to take trains from the channel tunnel round London and up the east coast main line been ordered? When will they have something better to use than a chain of Victorian branch lines round London not fit for Thomas the Tank Engine?

Mr. Parkinson: I shall leave on the board for the hon. Gentleman this book about the trains which have been developed—and are ordered—by Belgium, France and Britain. There will be a pool of jointly owned rolling stock, and identical trains will run between Brussels, Paris and the regions of Britain—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) sits there wittering away with her ill-informed colleagues, but it is a fact that there will be a pool of commonly owned trains that will be used for the through services.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his confirmation that the Kings Cross Railways Bill, of which I am the sponsor, is still needed and is unaffected by his statement. Does he understand that some Conservative Members are disappointed by his statement this afternoon because an opportunity to get the full benefit of our membership of the EC may not be lost? My right hon. Friend said in his statement that the railway investments that are going ahead will cater for demand in 1993 and for several years thereafter. Just how long will the existing capacity be able to cope?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. The existing freight capacity can cope indefinitely, but the passenger capacity will run out at about the turn of the century and additional capacity will be needed. I do not see that anything that I have said today will deny anybody the full benefit of anything. Channel tunnel rail services will be available for freight and will be fully utilised. All the regions will have access to the tunnel, with the most modern freight trains moving at comparable speeds. I do not see where the loss of benefit will occur.

Mr. John P. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Welsh CBI has expressed total dismay at his decision? It is participating in a

European business initiative this very week in Cardiff. In light of the disastrous consequences of his statement for the British transport network, does the Secretary of State intend to resign?

Mr. Parkinson: No; but I would not mind spending five minutes with the hon. Gentleman explaining why he is wrong.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that evaluation of the options leading to Stratford will be carried out in a way that is both realistic and proper and not in a way that suggests tokenism? Will he further confirm that those who live in north-west Kent near the route announced in September 1989 will continue to qualify for support under the compensation arrangements announced at that time?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend's constituents will remain fully entitled to compensation. The new chairman of British Rail is extremely anxious to settle the right route. He is taking seriously the report of his independent consultants.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State has made numerous references to the regions. Presumably he was referring to the regions of England. Why is he so contemptuously indifferent to the needs and interests of Scotland? When will he show some concern and commitment to an electrified high-speed link between Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and points south of the border?

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the electrification will continue to Edinburgh, and after that there is a discussion as to whether is would be justified to electrify as far as Aberdeen. That consultation is continuing. Many people consider that it would not be economically justified, but, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, if British Rail came to me with proposals, I would consider them very carefully.

Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend has taken a decision that was incredibly difficult but courageous and correct. Does he accept that one of the principal arguments in favour of the high-speed link was the need to get freight off the roads, but the high-speed link did nothing of the sort, even at the proposed cost of £2 billion in public funds? Does he also accept that some Conservative Members would gladly accept more public financial support for rail investment so long as it formed part of a proper national rail freight and passenger strategy? That is why we welcome the commitment to study the alternatives available to British Rail.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

Mr. David Blunkett: If I heard the Secretary of State aright, he said that he was born in the north. I assure him that after this afternoon his credentials have been withdrawn. It seems to me that there is no other city in Europe of equivalent size to Sheffield which has so little rail investment, so little planning for the single European market and so few prospects for getting a decent integrated service with Europe. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

Mr. Parkinson: I never had any credentials as a Yorkshireman. I am a Lancastrian and proud of it, so it does not worry me at all that the hon. Gentleman has


withdrawn my northern credentials. A number of us think that Sheffield has suffered for quite a long time for reasons which have nothing to do with the national Government and everything to do with its appalling local government.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to convey directly to the chairman of British Rail the very strong views expressed in the House this afternoon welcoming the commitment to investigate the alternatives to the Stratford-King's Cross entry? Despite his rather unenthusiastic view of those alternatives, does he agree that they could offer a positive approach to taking freight round London rather than through it?

Mr. Parkinson: It could be the launch pad for the development of a hugely expensive national freight network, but I consider that the pressure is on passenger capacity. That is British Rail's overriding consideration. As I have said already, British Rail is examining carefully all the proposals. The new chairman wants to be satisfied that what has been put to him is the best route, but he is totally open-minded and is considering the alternatives.

Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in his statement today he has extended even further the feeling of uncertainty among people in my constituency and throughout south-east London as to whether, when and where extra lines are likely to be placed? Meanwhile, if he assures us that the existing lines have the capacity to deal with freight and passenger traffic, does that not mean that those existing lines will be very much more heavily used and our constituents will suffer greatly from that heavy use? The fact that there may be no legal obligation for them to be compensated or for environmental protection to be provided does not mean that there is no moral duty on British Rail. Will he emphasise that point as strongly as possible?

Mr. Parkinson: Although the lines will be more heavily used, we have, in Network SouthEast, a network that is designed to deal with massive flows of people for relatively short periods each day. Between those peaks, there is quite substantial capacity available. The real problem for passengers is in the rush hours and freight does not need to use the rails at that time, as I explained. The lines will be more heavily used, but there is a great deal of scope for them to be more heavily used without them becoming overloaded.
In the meantime, I note what my hon. Friend has said. He knows the difficulties. Every road in this country is now carrying more traffic than it was 10 years ago because we have 5 million more cars. My hon. Friend is asking me to breach an enormous principle, which would affect not only railways, but all our roads—all of which are busier. It is not an easy subject on which to come to a quick decision. However, I note what my hon. Friend says.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State clarify one of his earlier—and confusing—answers? When does he expect through trains from Paris to Newcastle to be operating and at what speeds? How can he tell us that he is looking forward to an examination of all the options when the Bill was passed by his Government in their previous term of office, before I was

a Member of Parliament? Are the Government trying to tell us today that not all the options were considered before the Secretary of State talked to Eurorail?

Mr. Parkinson: Section 42 was included in the Channel Tunnel Act to ensure that no subsidised line would be built. What is more, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the then Secretary of State for Transport, did not work and Eurotunnel did not issue its prospectus on the basis that there would be a fast link. The fast link began to be discussed after the Channel Tunnel Bill was passed. I have already mentioned in my statement that eight consortia came forward with different proposals last year.
After careful consideration, British Rail settled on Eurorail and investigated the route about which I have talked today. As that route needs far greater Government support than originally expected—and the consortium originally said that it expected to come forward with a viable proposition—we have been forced to turn down that proposal. There is no question of incompetence and the House has been kept informed at all stages. Perhaps the hon. Lady should read some of the past debates.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): As my right hon. Friend has already recognised that most freight from the channel tunnel will be going to the midlands, to the north and to Scotland, will he also recognise that it is daft to try to move all that freight over already congested rail lines running through south and west London? Will he require British Rail to produce plans for improving the Ashford-Redhill link to move that freight round London?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, British Rail will look at the question of improving that link.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: How much has this embarrassing muddle cost British Rail so far? What is my right hon. Friend doing to tap European financial resources that have been offered? Is not the reality that, when the dust settles, the problem will go on stewing and that the United Kingdom European region will be at a disadvantage for even longer?

Mr. Parkinson: I hope that my hon. Friend will read my statement. We shall be offering a through service from the regions to Paris when the French will not be able to offer a through service from their regions to London. All passengers to the French regions will need to change in Paris initially. We shall have through services from the time that the tunnel opens. There will be 3 million seats a year—a substantial number.
I did not answer one of the questions of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). There will be a through service on the east coast main line from 1993.

Mr. James Couchman: May I reiterate the views of hon. Members who have stressed that what will disappoint Kent people most about my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon is the fact that it prolongs the uncertainty? If the chairman of British Rail is to do a thorough job of looking at the alternative routes, he must also do a speedy job so that, once and for all, we can have a protected route which is the only route and so that there will be no further uncertainty. Will the chairman of British Rail be looking only at the options that have come up so


far—that is, the Ove Arup route and the Thames alternative link international system or TALIS route—or are there further routes at which the consultants will look?

Mr. Parkinson: To avoid uncertainty, I have confirmed today that the compensation arrangements on the September 1989 proposals will be maintained. That means that the only people who are threatened by any decision have the right to compensation. That applies from Folkestone to Kings Cross. The chairman of British Rail wants, of course, to end the uncertainty as quickly as possible. Equally, he wants to take a good look at the options before he comes to a decision.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the speed of freight travelling from the midlands, from the north and from Scotland to the tunnel mouth will be comparable to that on the continent? Does he agree that it is at best bizarre for the Opposition to suggest that today's announcement is to the disadvantage of the rest of the country? Does he agree that the Opposition's attitude is more likely to be downright dishonest?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not know what the Opposition's motives are, although I have my own opinions. I can confirm, as I have done already, that British freight will be drawn by the most modern rolling stock, from modern depots and at comparable speeds to those on the continent to the mouth of the tunnel.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend has made several comments, which sounded slightly worrying to me, about the passenger capacity of the services. Will he give an absolute guarantee that my constituents and other commuters will be able to find a seat on the services that are running and will not be travelling on overcrowded trains?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend has underlined an important point—that too much of our discussion about transport is centred around the channel tunnel and the channel tunnel link—[Interruption.] Many people who will never use either want a decent service in their own areas and that is why, unlike the Opposition, we are not obsessed with the tunnel. We recognise its significance and the need to improve other parts of the network. That is why Network SouthEast alone will invest £1,200 million over the next three years in improving the lot of the commuter.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My right hon. Friend has said that he is aware of the vital importance of the channel tunnel to the regions, especially the north-west, and of the necessity for further rail investment not only for passenger travel, but for freight to enable the fast, efficient export of manufactured goods from the north of England to their continental destinations. Does he agree that such investment would be economically and environmentally justified?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I do. It is important that the north-west, including the area that my hon. Friend represents, has fair access to the tunnel. It is also important that it has a good road network, good access to the ports, good access to the airports and better airports. In other words, we need to improve our whole infrastructure, and that is what is happening under this Government, with record programmes in every area—in rail, in the

underground, in roads and in air traffic control. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to confirm that that the Government are determined that the north-west will have access to a full range of good transport facilities.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Notwithstanding the high-speed ranting of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are talking about the postponement, rather than the cancellation, of the fast rail link and that it is now for British Rail to go away, do a great deal more thinking, and come up with a more acceptable scheme?

Mr. Parkinson: That is absolutely right. Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who studies nothing and knows everything, British. Rail recognises that this is a complicated problem and deserves careful consideration, which is precisely what British Rail is giving it.

Mr. Tim Janman: My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware that two of the alternatives, which will no doubt be looked at in the report to be commissioned by the chairman of British Rail, would involve routes through my constituency. May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions?

Mr. Speaker: No—one question, please.

Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend feel that either the Ove Arup or the TALIS alternative would provide better through links to the north than the Eurorail proposal? Can he assure the House——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for one question, and the time is getting on.

Mr. Parkinson: The Ove Arup scheme is completely different in concept. As my hon. Friend knows, it deals with both freight and passengers. If we were to benefit from it, it would need to act as a launching pad for a very expensive nationwide scheme costing about £10 billion to £15 billion—hardly the sort of money that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would get from that £80 million a year European infrastructure fund.

Mr. Edward Leigh: So far, our questions have been dominated by hon. Members representing constituencies in London and Kent, who are rightly concerned about the local environment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that taxpayers in general would conclude that it would be at best most unwise to favour one part of the transport infrastructure by throwing £2 billion into what could prove, literally, to be a bottomless pit, by tunnelling through some of the most difficult geological conditions in the world, just to cut half an hour off the journey time between London and Paris?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing a note of common sense and realism into the discussion and pointing out that we cannot lay all Britain's future transport needs at the door of the tunnel. We need to improve the whole of our infrastructure, and the Government are getting on with doing just that.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members believe that what is needed is a new rail link that will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, and that, to that end, we


shall continue to consult the civil engineering industry and other railway technical experts? [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may snigger, but I am being serious. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's earlier cavalier dismissal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), will he undertake to consider any proposals that we relay to him about the feasibility of such a rail link?
What, in his opinion, will be the impact of today's decision on road traffic in Kent and particularly in constituencies such as Dover, Dulwich and Dartford? Will he take it from me that the bluster that typified his statement this afternoon will not alter the fact that the announcement is a grievous blow to Britain's economy and that it will condemn British Rail, and particularly commuters in the south of England, to a crowded and uncertain future?
Will he accept that we will give him every assistance in repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 if that is what he thinks is holding up proper investment in rail links to and from the Channel ports?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement today has united the CBI, the Institute of Directors, chambers of commerce throughout the United Kingdom, local and regional authorities of all political persuasions, the technical and rail press, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times and The Daily Telegraph, all of which have condemned his latest defeat as a dream that has come off the rails Will he take it from me that the decision today is not only a blow for Britain but could prove to be the end of his already faltering career?

Mr. Parkinson: It is better to be a has-been than a never-was.
The hon. Gentleman talked about road traffic. I am sure that he is aware that the tunnel is designed so that half the capacity can be used by the shuttle to move road traffic. That is why this Government and the French Government are spending approximately the same amount—£600

million—in providing road access. My announcement today will make no difference at all to congestion. Freight will travel as I have explained and by the routes that I have outlined, and it will travel in the quantities in which it would have travelled had I not made my announcement today. The limitation on the movement of freight will be the capacity not of railway lines but of the tunnel. There will be road traffic. That is why we are spending a lot of money, and that is why Eurotunnel is to allocate half the capacity of the tunnel to road. It is a surprise only to the hon. Gentleman—it is not a surprise to anyone else—that there will be an increase in traffic and that roads will be improved.
I do not accept that what I have announced today is a grievous blow to anybody. When the CBI reads my statement, instead of listening——

Mr. Prescott: Listening to me?

Mr. Parkinson: No. The CBI was probably listening to those who were pushing out stuff saying that, for only £400 million, we could have an amazing all-singing, all-dancing all-purpose link. The sum was never going to be £400 million. When the CBI reads my statement and sees the facts, it may want to modify its views.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned commuters. I have pointed out to him that, in addition to the fast link, in Kent alone we shall be investing nearly £800 million in improving commuter services. To give an example, the north Kent line will have its entire rolling stock replaced and 63 stations lengthened to take 12-coach trains, and new signalling and maintenance systems will be installed. The south Kent lines will get a further £300 million to £400 million to be invested in new rolling stock. While the hon. Gentleman squeals about his concern for commuters, the Government are as usual getting on with making arrangements to make their lives better.
I am answerable to the bodies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned; I am answerable to the House. The Government's transport policies are sensible and balanced and will give Britain a modern infrastructure in the 1990s.

Optical Factory (Kidwelly)

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The shock closure yesterday of a factory owned by United Kingdom Optical Ltd. in the town of Kidwelly in my constituency with the loss of 200 jobs.
The factory is probably the largest manufacturer of lenses for spectacles in the United Kingdom.
The matter is important because the economic and social consequences will be devastating for the small town of Kidwelly and the surrounding villages. The lost production will almost certainly be taken up by imports, thus making the United Kingdom's horrendous balance of payments deficit even worse. It is also important because the company has publicly stated that one of the reasons for the closure is that sales of lenses for spectacles have fallen by 30 per cent. as a result of the Government's imposition of charges for eye testing. That is directly contrary to the recent assertion by the Secretary of State for Health that there has been no reduction in demand. Clearly, the market knows more than the Minister.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that the closure of the factory is a matter for urgent debate.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The closure of United Kingdom Optical Ltd. with a loss of approximately 20 jobs.
I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, the difficult decision that I have to make in these matters is whether his application should have precedence over the business set down for today or for Monday.
I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Estimates Day

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

ESTIMATES, 1990–91

Class VI, Vote 1

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT

TRAINING

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Employment Committee of Session 1989–90 on Employment Training (House of Commons Paper No. 427) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 2nd May 1990 (House of Commons Paper No. 394-i), so far as they relate to training]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £1,286,770,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Employment on improving, promoting and disseminating training among individuals, small firms and employers, encouraging enterprise, running services for small firms and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, providing training programmes for young people and adults, providing employment rehabilitation services, technical and vocational education, work-related further education and the costs of the Skills Training Agency until privatisation, on the administration of training and enterprise, and central and miscellaneous services.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). A large number of hon. Members want to take part in this debate which lasts for three houses. I ask hon. Members who want to speak to make brief contributions because if we can start the second debate within the three hours, that would benefit the House.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I am pleased to introduce this debate on the Department of Employment's estimates. It will enable the House to debate training and the Government's policy and record in that regard. I am also pleased to see the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in the Chamber today.
If we follow where Government money goes—or does not go—we can follow where policy is going. I must emphasise that I am giving a personal view and no doubt other members of the Employment Select Committee, if they are fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will do the same. The hallmark of our times is the rapid and constant advance of new technology and product innovation. If our industries cannot innovate and deliver the new products, the orders will be lost to suppliers abroad. Not only overseas customers but our own domestic market will be supplied from abroad.
We live in an ever more competitive world market. Any country, any industry or any company that does not keep abreast of the development of technology will lose out and be overtaken. Much of the new technology can be transferred. State of the art equipment can be brought in. However, the question is: does the work force then have the skills and ability to use and exploit it to the best advantage? If technology can be transferred, countries and companies will compete on the skills of their work forces.
The successful countries and successful companies are invariably those with the best training programmes and the best trained work forces. They understand that it is as important to invest in people—perhaps even more so—as in the fixed assets of plants and machinery. The most important resource, the one in which systematic investment yields increasing returns, is people or human capital.
A number of countries have based their success on understanding that truth. The industrial revolution occurred in Britain first and, as a result, Britain then led the world. Other countries, like Germany, adopted conscious policies to catch up with Britain. They did that and surpassed us. Germany now has the renowned dual training system which gives a thorough, first-class grounding of vocational training. In Japan and the United States, participation by 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education is almost universal. In France, the United States and Japan the education system is the important source of job skills at craft level. That leads to a greater share of the costs of initial training being borne by the Government. The newly industrialised countries of the Pacific rim all now have impressive systems of education and training.
What is the position in Britain? Last year, the Government's Training Agency published the document "Training in Britain". That was the most detailed and authoritative study of training ever undertaken in Britain. What did it tell us? It revealed nothing for our comfort. The picture was startling and bleak. Two thirds of economically active 19 to 59-year-olds said that they had not had any training in the last three years. Over half of economically active adults with no prior qualifications said that they had not received any training since leaving school.
Employers reported that about half of their work forces had received no training during the year. Systematic approaches to training were found to be the exception. No fewer than 42 per cent. and roughly half of those over 35, said that they could not imagine any circumstances leading them to undertake any education or training. Even those who said that they could imagine themselves training, had done little about it, often through lack of funding and time and were waiting for others to take the initiative.
As for young people, the report showed that only around one third of all 16 and 17-year-olds were in full-time education. There had been a dramatic decline in the number of apprenticeships and very few 16 or 17-year-olds entering jobs, outside the youth training scheme, receive any substantial training.
At a time when rapidly changing technology increases the demand for people with high levels of skill and reduces the demand for unskilled manual labour, when increasingly fierce international competition raises the importance of training if we are to achieve a satisfactory economic performance and when there is a premium on a more flexible and competent work force at all levels, how are we to describe the abysmal situation revealed by the Training Agency's study?

Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: I prefer not to give way at the moment, because I have been asked to be brief.
The description given by the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton

Coldfield whom we are extremely pleased to see in the Chamber this afternoon and to whom the Training Agency's report was presented, was that the position was "mind-boggling". The right hon. Gentleman actually issued a press notice on 16 November headed "Mind boggling". For the benefit of Employment Ministers who often make complacent statements pretending that all is well, I should point out that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield did not mean mind-bogglingly good, he meant mind-bogglingly bad.
So what is to be done about that? We all know the facts and they have been analysed to death. We need action. We get lots of governmental lip service to training, but where are the resources? Are the Government going to put their money where their rhetoric is? The estimates show that that is not the case.
The Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 are grouped under the heading
Skills and competence for work
in table 6.3 of Cm 1006. If we analyse and compare expenditure with previous and future years we can take an index figure of 100 for the estimated outturn for the year 1989–90. In real terms, the figure for 1987–88 was 122. Therefore, two years ago we were spending 22 per cent. more. In 1992–93 it is planned to be only 73. Therefore in two years' time we shall be spending a further quarter less. The cash for training has been falling and is planned to fall further. Even since last year's White Paper, the cash for 1990–91 and for 1991–92 has been cut in real terms by 18 and 21 per cent. respectively. That is a measure of the cuts in planned expenditure on training which the Treasury obtained from Ministers in last autumn's spending round.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Leighton: No, I am sorry. I do not have time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Well, if hon. Members want me to give way, and take up more time, I will.

Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the amount of money that is being spent. Does he accept that how much is spent is important, but so too is how well it is targeted? Does he also agree that the Government's new initiative of training credits will do much to achieve the right balance between what is being spent and ensuring that it is spent in the right place, on the right person being trained in the right way?

Mr. Leighton: I have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he has a bad habit of interrupting every speech that I make in the House. If he had had a little more patience he would have found that I was about to come to his point.
As I was saying, those cuts were a major victory for the Treasury, but a defeat for the nation's training needs. I hope that no one will try to pretend that those cuts in expenditure are justified by the fall in numbers. For example, employment training reaches only a fraction of the client group. Over the next three years, cash for youth training will fall by nearly half in real terms, but the numbers will fall by only a quarter. Real expenditure per trainee will fall from £50 to £33. Quality is likely to go down, not up.
Of course we want to see employers spending more. However, is it right to say that we shall spend less? Is that the right signal to send out? For demographic reasons there will be fewer school leavers. As employers compete for them, there will be less youth unemployment. Does


that mean that the Government should spend less per person per unit on youth training? That lends credence to those who say that YTS was just a cosmetic and a means to disguise unemployment and that the Government will now pull out and wash their hands of the matter.
The Minister was good enough to go along to the launch of the London East training and enterprise council. He knows that some people complained of their difficulties with YT. He said that the guarantee would still be given. I must tell the Minister that I received a telephone call today from Mr. Ernest Large, the chairman of the east London managing agents network, who told me about a meeting this week in east London of more than two dozen managing agents to discuss what he called the crisis in YT. He told me that, last year, they got £39·03 a week for each trainee and that they had received that sum for the past four years. Not having been inflation-proof, in real terms that sum had gone down. It has now been cut to £32, and that has brought about a crisis that will lead to lower quality.
Mr. Large told me that college fees had gone up three times in the past two years as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, meaning that full costs are charged. The managing agents are angry and demoralised. They told me that their hard work made the scheme a success for which the Government took the credit. Now they say that they are being kicked in the teeth and that the guarantee cannot now be delivered. Today Mr. Large sent 12 letters to potential trainees, telling them that he cannot offer them places. Mr. Large's address is suite J, Roycraft house, 15 Linton road, Barking IG11 8HG. That is the position in east London as told to me by the people who are operating on the ground today.
Employment training was launched amid much hype, which we seem to hear rather less of at the moment. The fall in numbers cannot be convincingly argued, as the programme reaches only about two thirds of its original target number. Even if the programme had reached the original number, it would have reached only a fraction of the client group. The Select Committee on Employment has monitored the programmes since its inception, when it replaced the new job training scheme. JTS was also supposed to provide training that was tailored to individual needs, but it was plagued by drop-outs from the scheme.
In a previous report the Committee revealed that, in 1987–88, JTS had used only £64 million of its £215 million provision. That was a disappointment on a heroic scale. We took evidence from the Training Agency and asked what lessons it had learnt from that failure, and it told us that there were four—first, the targets for numbers on the scheme had to be realistic; secondly, trainees had to have a financial incentive to join; thirdly, managing agents should have higher incentives; and fourthly, employers needed to be encouraged to have a more positive attitude to the long-term unemployed. It does not seem that those lessons have been learnt or adequately applied.
The target for ET was 600,000 on the scheme in one year and 300,000 participants at any given time, given an average six-month course. Those numbers were far too optimistic. They might have looked good for massaging the unemployment figures, but it was impossible to cope with them without an adequate training infrastructure of agents, managers and willing employers. The numbers have been successively reduced.
In the autumn of 1988, the number was reduced to 265,000, in the autumn of 1989 it was reduced to 250,000, and, in December 1989, according to Roger Dawe, now the director general of the Training Agency, there were 210,000 on the scheme and 40,000 unfilled places. As the numbers envisaged dropped, so did the amount of money allocated, with underspending followed by two large cuts.
As for the financial incentive for trainees, they get £10 over benefit. That has not proved attractive. Many say that why are worse off. That allowance could be doubled at a cost of £120 million, and that point should be seriously considered. As for incentives for managing agents, the training agent in London gets £38, and an agent outside London gets £31·50 to interview a client and draw up a personalised action plan. Action plans are not drawn up very thoroughly. There is evidence that, in some cases, it takes half an hour to draw up such plans, according to parliamentary answers, it takes four to five hours over two days. The training agent then gets £15 for every placement with a training manager. That can only be described as a shoestring budget.
At the next stage, the training manager gets £15 for every person who starts training, and then £18 a week basic grant for training. There are also supplementary grants averaging about £20, making about £38 a week to pay for training. What quality training can we get for less than £1 an hour?
Of course, employers could make a contribution, but is it any wonder that most of them have had nothing to do with the scheme? The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) asked questions on that very point when he was a valuable member of the Select Committee. He knows that I am right, because I read his questions and answers only a couple of days ago. Only a quarter of trainees get placements with employers. The rest are expected to struggle on with the sums that I have mentioned.
Although ET has the germ of a good idea, in its present form it is badly flawed. It is underfunded and, as a result, often inadequate and unattractive. It has been unable to reach its targets and it has not spent the money allocated to it. Perhaps the most graphic indicator of its flaws is the staggeringly high drop-out rate, the customers voting with their feet.
Roger Dawe of the Training Agency told us on 11 December 1989 that about 45 per cent. of those referred dropped out before they got to the training agent and that there was a further large drop-out before they got to the training manager. Only about 20 to 25 per cent. stay with a training manager for more than a week. Of that number, 70 per cent. did not complete their original action plans. Of the small minority who actually complete their training, 49 per cent., or virtually half, get a job.
With the best will in the world, I find it impossible to describe that outcome as other than shambolic. None of us would be happy with that or accept it. An inferior programme is wasting public money, and no one can pretend that it matches up to the training needs of the country. Because it is so unattractive and because there are so many drop-outs, the scheme does not spend the money that is allocated to it.

Sir Norman Fowler: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the drop-out problem and that there has been a problem under all programmes. Will he equally accept that the great majority of those people


drop out before they get to the training programme? That is the point. Under any programme, that problem will continue, and we must tackle it.

Mr. Leighton: The former Secretary of State is absolutely right. About 45 per cent. drop out before they get to the training agent. After the personalised action plan is done, there is a further large drop-out, and only about 20 per cent. actually stay with the training manager. Of the minority who stay with the training manager, 70 per cent. do not complete their personal action plans. Of those who complete their training, 49 per cent. do not get a job. Those are the facts as told by the Training Agency, and they are less than satisfactory.
Because people did not go on the scheme and the money was not spent, the Treasury took back money. It first took back £100 million and then it took back £200 million. Rather than make those cuts, the Government should make an essential investment in a quality training programme. They should restore the cuts and improve the programme. We know that the Department of Employment commissioned a scrutiny and a survey on ET——

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): indicated assent.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister is nodding his head. I believe that the Secretary of State has had the result for a couple of months now and, as far as I know, it has not yet been published. I have asked for it to be published and I am asking again now that that official scrutiny, which was commissioned and carried out on behalf of the Department, should be published. Why have the Government clammed up and kept it secret? Surely we should lay all cards on the table.

Mr. Eggar: Of course it will be published, and I shall refer to it in my speech.

Mr. Leighton: I made a note earlier to hope that as a result of the debate we might have an outburst of glasnost and the report would be published. That might help us to decide what we can do to rescue and transform the programme and to give it some credibility. The very least that we should do is to restore the cuts. Instead of a cheap, low-quality scheme, we should restore the original money and go for higher-quality training, with fewer but more realistic numbers. Anything less will fail the country's training needs.

Mr. Dave Nellist: My hon. Friend has spoken about restoring the scheme in real terms. Is he aware that I have received yet another written answer from the Department during the past fortnight, showing that the original youth training scheme that was set up by the Labour Government in April 1978, paid trainees an allowance of £19·50 per week and that if that had risen at the same rate as average earnings over the past 11 years, youngsters would now receive £63·48 per week instead of the £29·50 that they are paid? Does he agree with me and, I suspect, a hell of a lot of parents and trade unionists, that one of the things that needs to be restored is the real value of the training allowance, which the Government have steadily eroded over the past 11 years?

Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has paid close attention to the youth training scheme since he has been a Member of Parliament and makes a sound and effective point. We shall have to wait for the Government's response.
I hope—this is my final point——

Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he referred to me earlier. He has made great play of the fact that the number of trainees has not reached the total that was originally set. However, he has not taken into account the fact that the target group of the long-term unemployed has dropped dramatically—beyond anybody's expectations—in the two years since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the scheme and has dropped considerably more than the numbers by which the Labour party promised to make it drop at the last election.

Mr. Leighton: That is not an adequate excuse for not hitting the targets. I do not want to become involved in any party political badinage about the way in which the figures for the long-term unemployed are arrived at. Many people who begin a scheme but then drop out in the first week are then not treated as long-term unemployed. However, even accepting the alleged figure for the long-term unemployed, if we had hit the original target, we would still have dealt with only a fraction of the client group. It is not as though we are short of people who are long-term unemployed to take part in the programmes. That is not a good enough excuse to explain the inadequacies, drawbacks and flaws of the programme.
I hope that we shall hear something of moment and consequence from the Minister. He has at least suggested that he will publish the survey. I hope that he does not seek to shuffle off or abdicate his responsibilities or wash his hands of such an important issue by saying that it is a matter for the training and enterprise councils and that he is handing all this over to the TECs—that it is their problem and not his. There is a national interest in training which is greater and larger than that of any particular group of companies. We must all wish the TECs well —after all, they are the only show in town. I wish well and will closely follow the experiences of the London East TEC under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. David Dickinson and his enthusiastic group of people.
Although we wish all the TECs well, the ultimate responsibility always lies with Parliament. The Select Committee will continue its interest in and scrutiny of these matters. I hope and trust that we have done a service in bringing them before the House.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I share the anxiety of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment about the fact that employment training has an unacceptably high drop-out rate. However, a considerable proportion of those who drop out of ET do so because they have found jobs, which makes it understandable.

Mr. Nellist: How many?

Sir Philip Goodhart: I believe that at the moment the proportion is about four fifths of those who drop out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) has pointed out, there has been a sharp fall in the number of long-term unemployed during


the past two years. Naturally enough, that means that many of those who are left have considerable social and educational problems, and those are the reasons why they have remained unemployed for so long.

Mr. Chris Butler: I am interested in my hon Friend's point because in the evidence given by MDS Training Ltd., it appeared that about 55 per cent. of trainees had literacy and numeracy problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that that points to deficiencies in the education system and that that is why there are so many people with problems which employment training then has to sweep up?

Sir Philip Goodhart: That is certainly true. I believe that about 16 per cent. of those on ET have identifiable literacy and numeracy problems. However, paragraph 30 of the report points out:
we do not however assume that learning difficulties such as those described by our witnesses should be dealt with only by ET; many other agencies are available for this task.
I know that the charities involved in the employment training programme are particularly well qualified to help those with literacy and numeracy problems. Our report has thus appeared at a particularly propitious moment as I believe that there is a three-way move between the Department of Employment, the TECs and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in relation to the proposed cut in training places provided by the charities represented on the NCVO. It appears that about 5,000 training places are to be cut in the coming year, which is about 11 per cent. of the places provided by those charities. As so many people on ET programmes have special literacy and numeracy problems, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press the TECs to ensure that the number of places offered by charities with special skills in dealing with such handicap can be maintained at the current level.
I note that during the past couple of years the Department of Employment and training in general has moved rapidly in the direction of consumer choice and taken up the suggestion that training vouchers should be widely used. I am glad that pilot schemes for the voucher system are under way as I am worried about the large number of drop-outs from ET, which clearly shows a lack of identification between the trainee and the scheme. The introduction of vouchers will get over that problem and in the years ahead will sharply reduce the number of people who drop out from this most valuable programme.

6 pm

Mr. Mike Carr: It is a great honour for me to make my maiden speech in the House of Commons today. On this occasion I am reminded of a saying which the Secretary of State for Transport, who has left the Chamber, might appreciate. It is that speeches are like babies— easy to conceive but hard to deliver.
First, I wish to refer to my election campaign. Considering the tremendous pressures placed on candidates of all parties these days in by-elections, I must say that the campaign was conducted for the most part with good humour and without resort to personal insult or abuse. I take great pleasure in the remarkable achievement of increasing the Labour share of the vote from 67 per cent. in the 1987 general election to 75 per cent. in the Bootle by-election. The overall swing of some 9·5 per cent. to Labour in what was already a Labour stronghold

underlines a trend that was demonstrated in the mid-Staffordshire by-election and the May local elections. The Labour party is on course to form the next Government of this country.
Before I leave the by-election, I wish to refer to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the Social Democratic party. Bootle has been described as the graveyard of the SDP. I am reminded of the words of Hilaire Belloc:
Here, richly with ridiculous diplay, The politician's corpse was laid away, While all his acquaintances sneered and slanged, I wept; for I had longed to see him hanged.
On a more serious note, it would be remiss of me in making my maiden speech not to comment on my predecessor, Allan Roberts. He was not only a serious politician but a warm, generous personality. I will quote the words that he wrote in The House Magazine last year, when he said:
I'm proud to be a British Member of Parliament elected on a Labour ticket for one of the world's leading democracies. I've had a superb life, I enjoy good friends, good food and good wine. I have no regrets.
Allan will be sadly missed and I shall continue the work that he did so well in the constituency.
I owe my success—as did Allan and Simon Mahon before him—to the Labour party and movement, and to the loyal Labour voters of Bootle who returned me to this House with such an overwhelming majority. As one journalist commented in the campaign, the people of Bootle do not just vote Labour—they are Labour.
Bootle, home to 96,000 people, is described as a tough dockland town. Its skyline is certainly dominated by the cranes on the dockside and the docks play an important role in the economy and culture of the town. But Bootle is much more than a dockland town. It houses the headquarters of National Girobank, one of the town's largest employers, with 5,500 staff. The Inland Revenue also has offices in Bootle and it is hoped that more civil service work will be transferred from London to Bootle.
The town is not so much tough as independent. Local people are proud to come from Bootle. It long resisted being taken within the borders of its southern neighbour, Liverpool. In the mid-1970s, however, it was swallowed up by the metropolitan borough of Sefton, which includes the towns of Southport and Crosby. But Bootle still asserts its independence by refusing to vote either for the Tories or for the Liberals favoured by the populace of the other two towns.
Every one of the 24 council seats in the constituency of Bootle is Labour, and Labour is the largest party in the hung council, with a total of 27 councillors. The people of Bootle work hard and have strong trade union traditions. The town is predominantly working-class, with twice as many semi-skilled and unskilled workers as the national average. Many skilled workers have moved out of the town to find work. The population has fallen by 20 per cent. since the 1971 census. More than a third of the population is either under 15 or over 65.
With some success, Bootle has broadened its range of employment to avoid becoming a one-industry town, but civil service relocation has not always placed jobs for local people at the top of its agenda and unemployment is still rife. Department of Employment figures suggest that there is 13·9 per cent. unemployment, but the unemployment unit, using the pre-1982 method of calculation, puts the


figure at 20 per cent. In the league table of constituencies with high unemployment, Bootle is 18th in England and 27th in Great Britain.
Young people, in particular, bear the brunt of unemployment with 22 per cent. of Bootle's unemployed under the age of 25 and more than half of them out of work for more than six months. The point that is relevant to today's debate is that if a sizeable proportion of the young have no stake in society, society itself appears to have given up its stake in the future. Britain is in danger of becoming the worst educated and most poorly trained nation in Europe. Further and higher education has been undermined and skill centres and industrial training boards have been shut down.
In the recent giveaway privatisation of the nation's Training Agency, 28 staff at the Liverpool skill centre were sacked immediately by the new private owners, Metel. Existing training programmes—the youth training scheme and employment training—offer low quality training, often without any recognised qualification. Among the half million 16 and 17-year-old school leavers entering the labour market, 315,000 joined YTS in 1988–89 but only 42 per cent. left having gained any qualification. Why is that so? Previous speakers referred to the reason. For the most part, the scheme is about providing cheap labour to employers who are more interested in job substitution than the provision of decent training—and the taxpayer forks out £1 billion per year for the privilege. It is nothing less than a gross scandal. I have four children who have been on the youth training scheme. It is an insult to expect our young people to do a week's work for £29·50.
Of the 176,000 people on employment training last year, only 25 per cent. completed their action plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to that. Is it any wonder that people drop out? Where is the motivation for people in receipt of benefit, plus a £10 a week so-called training premium which has not been increased since ET started and has been reduced for single people under 25 and childless couples?
The poor provision of training perpetuates an economic cycle of poor products and reinforces a human cycle of unemployment, insecure work, low skills and low pay, in which 9 million people are now trapped. Education and training holds the key to Britain's future prosperity. To meet the challenges of the 1990s, Britain must invest in the urgently needed skills that will enable us to compete in future world markets. Therefore, our goal must be to provide a clear, well-defined structure of educational and high quality training opportunity for all.
That means ensuring that everyone, including the redundant and the long-term unemployed, has the opportunity to acquire new or improved skills, so that they can increase their job satisfaction, widen the range of their opportunities and extend their contribution to the economy and to society. It means that education and training needs must be regularly reviewed and an adaptable framework provided to meet those needs. It means ensuring that people have a constant opportunity to update their skills throughout their lives. It also means giving a new priority, throughout our education, training

and retraining strategies, to the needs of women so that we can tap the huge potential of skill and talent in the majority of the British people.
Education and training are the keystones of a society of opportunity and personal fulfilment, and an economy that is competitive and efficient. Investment in education and training is a measure of a Government's vision and commitment to the future.

Mr. Simon Coombs: It is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. It is some seven years since I made my maiden speech, and if the hon. Gentleman was as nervous today as I was on that occasion I can only say that he is an extremely good actor. He conveyed no sense of the gravity of the occasion that we all feel when we first come to the House.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman pay a warm tribute to his predecessor Allan Roberts. We are all aware that he was well respected not only in his constituency but by hon. Members throughout the House. We miss him, but we warmly welcome his successor. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he will not always be listened to in this House with the same rapt attention that has been his lot on this occasion. Indeed, there may in future be the odd moment when Conservative Members may find something in what he says with which to disagree. Nevertheless, our welcome is warm and we wish him well.
I wish to say a few words about each of the two training schemes that we are debating. I shall start with employment training. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment said in opening the debate, the Select Committee has this week published a report on that matter. It is right that, during this short debate, the House should dwell upon some of the points made by the Select Committee.
The report was fairly critical of the employment training scheme, but I think it right to point out that a great deal of good value has come out of employment training in its few short months of existence. There are faults and we need to improve the system, but many people have benefited from that training and have returned to the workplace, to real jobs. When we are trying to be constructive in our criticism of the scheme, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that much good work has been done already.
The shortfall in numbers from those originally suggested as appropriate for the funding of the scheme has been mentioned. It must be recognised that, during the life of the scheme, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed people. In parts of the United Kingdom such as Swindon, there are now relatively few unemployed people who are available for employment training. Therefore, it is natural that there should be some reduction in the overall funding of the scheme.
I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). There are imperfections in the scheme, and I look forward with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the results of the internal review. We must look to the future for the scheme, and I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and


my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that we need to target ET and make it more user friendly.
There is no doubt that the sort of people coming forward for employment training find it tough enough to go through one interview, so they must find it even more difficult when they have to go through a second interview before they can hope to start their training package. Can we not discover from the internal review whether we can simplify that process for many of those who lack confidence and need a great deal of support and encouragement? Can we find a way of making it easier for them to get to the point of starting training? As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), there is a substantially higher drop-out rate among those who never even start their training than among those who start but then fail to complete it. That is the first point that we must tackle.
My experience from talking to training managers in my constituency is that once people start with a training manager and get stuck into their training, many are surprised by their experiences. They have heard a great deal of criticism about the scheme from the House—and Opposition Members are always the first to criticise any scheme that the Goverment put forward—and they often initially come to the scheme lacking in confidence in what they can achieve. Very often they are pleasantly surprised, they find the training valuable and they then find jobs in the real world outside the world of training. I ask all hon. Members interested in the debate to agree that we need to simplify the processes that get people into the training system and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to say something about that.
I wish to touch on the need for increased concentration on those who lack personal skills—those who may be unable to read or write, and especially those who may lack motivation and have a low opinion of themselves, perhaps as the result of a long period of unemployment or family difficulties. Whatever the reason, they lack the self-confidence to believe that training is right for them and they need encouragement.
Like the Chairman of the Select Committee, I believe that we must increase the per capita spending on such people to provide the additional support to get them up and running and ready for the job market. I am not talking about large sums. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he has read the Select Committee's report, so he will know that we are not arguing for a vast increase in public expenditure. We are saying that there will be an increasing need to target resources on those—and we hope that it is a diminishing number—who have such problems and therefore need that support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham rightly said that ET is not the only way in which that problem could be tackled. The Select Committee was right to say that other agencies must play their part in trying to help with problems such as difficulty with reading and writing. The key—and this is where Opposition Members lose their way—is the share of responsibility for the potential employers of the trainees. The Opposition have frequently said that there is no private sector involvement. When we hear their attacks on the level of Government expenditure we might think that that was the whole story, and that it was simply the Government reducing expenditure. That is not true, and I know that Opposition Members would not wish to mislead the public into thinking that it was.
The point at issue is the degree to which employers will be prepared to take up what the Government and Conservative Members think are their responsibilities in this matter. The problem is that, the more difficult it is to place the individual trainee, the more reluctant the employer will be to give him the opportunity or to help to fund the training scheme in some way. So I hope that the Minister will not be content with the simple answer that employers will come forward to fill the gap between what is available in public expenditure terms and what is needed to ensure good-quality training for those who would otherwise be without it.
I am afraid that employers will be tempted to import labour—not necessarily from overseas, although after 1992 that must be a developing question in our minds—but from other parts of the country. They may be prepared in an area such as mine to bid up the cost of labour and engage in competition between themselves to get workers to fill vacancies.
We should be making it clear in this debate that we want everybody to have a chance of sharing in the job market. That must include those with learning difficulties and those who lack motivation and self-confidence. They, too, must be part of it all, and that means that extra help will be needed from the public purse to ensure that such people take the first steps on the ladder into training and later, we hope, into jobs.
I pay tribute to the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for the way in which they have promoted pilot schemes for those with learning difficulties, so that there are now 15 job clubs with pilot schemes. In my constituency, the jobcentre, under the management in recent years of John Down, has done well in trying to help those with learning difficulties. Much has been achieved, but the question at the heart of the matter is who will give the quality training that is needed and how will it be funded. Having put a series of questions on that issue, I hope that, by the conclusion of the debate, we shall receive some helpful answers.
The same problem, in a sense, must be tackled in youth training. Will the funding from the public purse be sufficient to ensure that young people with learning difficulties coming into the job market for the first time have a chance to get training and find a good job?
Recently in my constituency I was approached by the Taurus training centre, an organisation set up in 1969 to help young people with learning difficulties to find a way into the job market. I pay tribute to Sue Morgan, the manager of that centre, and to Raychem, a large international company which has supported the venture from its inception, and the senior personnel manager of which, Philip Griffiths, is currently chairman of the Taurus training centre.
The Taurus organisation was threatened with reduced funding. It came to me, as the Member for the area most affected, asking for my help, having made it clear that its client base was not reducing. Hon. Members may think that Swindon is a place where everything is going well, with high employment and good opportunities. That is so, but there are still young people left out in the cold of the bright new world that exists in Swindon and many parts of Britain. That client base has not declined and Taurus argues that the money should be available to support those requiring special help.
I am pleased to say that, as a result of what I was able to do, the Wiltshire training and enterprise council, which


has only recently entered its development phase, was able to initiate discussions. This story may convince Opposition Members that there are ways of overcoming problems. As a result of discussions between that training and enterprise council and Taurus, extra money has been found. We see that flexibility and room for manoeuvre exists within the budget to provide help where it is needed.
The Minister of State was involved in that matter. An exchange of letters between us led to meetings in the constituency, as a result of which not only has the Taurus training centre obtained additional funding to help young people with learning difficulties, but contact has been made with employers who are not simply interested in employing the youngsters but have a philanthropic approach to the problems that have been brought to their attention.
A combination of extra public money and help from the private sector means that the Taurus training centre in my constituency will have a better chance of continuing with its excellent work than seemed likely a few weeks ago.
What next? What is the Government's message to those young people? I hope that it is not, "You are on your own. It is up to you to find help. It is up to the people who want to help you to find help." I hope that the Government's attitude will be clearly spelled out. We want everyone in the country, irrespective of ability to have a chance to get into the job market through the high-quality training that the Government intend to provide throughout Britain.
The cost of what I am suggesting—which is flexibility to allow additional expenditure on a per capita basis to help these people—is small compared with the cost to the economy of the wage cost inflation that would result from bidding up the cost of labour in areas such as mine, or the house price inflation that would result from people moving about the country, if they were able to do so, to find jobs in relatively prosperous areas.
We cannot rely on a few public-spirited private companies to fund training in Britain. Nor do I believe that the Government believe that that, any more than the education system, which has all too often failed the disadvantaged, can be held responsible for all that has gone wrong.
I will not be joining Opposition Members in any wholesale criticism of ET or YT, because there is much to be said for both of them. They have achieved a great deal in an area that was underfunded until the early part of this decade, but which has been increasingly better supported by the Government in the past five to 10 years. But the time is coming when we must review our priorities. We must see what can be done for those who up to now have missed out on the help that has been available. On their behalf I appeal to the Minister to make a positive contribution and so to help them to feel that they have not been forgotten by us.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) on taking his seat and making his maiden speech. I appreciate, having myself fought a by-election, what a nerve-racking experience it is, not just in being a candidate in such a contest but in being the candidate whom everybody else wants to knock down. On arriving here,

one finds that it is not the easiest place in which to make one's maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on his speech, but on the words he chose to refer to his predecessor. I recall having to make a similar, in many ways sad, speech when I first arrived here.
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and I will not always agree, but today I agreed with much of what he said about training. Having some knowledge of Bootle, I endorse what he said about the needs of the area. I hope that he will campaign hard to bring to the attention of the House the issues that his constituents are anxious to have raised.
The report published this week by the Select Committee on Employment is a damning indictment of this country's record on training. I say "this country's" rather than just "the Government's" because in the long term this country has failed to give young people—indeed all people—the skills and opportunities that they should be given in an increasingly high-tech and complicated age. The numeracy and literacy shortcomings and weaknesses are a particular indictment, and should not exist.
Many of those problems do not exist merely among people leaving school. Although not all hon. Members would agree, we probably have the highest standards of numeracy and literacy that we have ever had in this country among young people coming out of college. But there are many people, of all ages, who do not have those skills and whom we have neglected. We have not fully addressed those problems and I agree with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that we must do so. I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to the points made in the report on that matter.
More specific criticisms are made in the report which are laid, in part, at the Government's door. The report states that 70 per cent. of those who agreed a personal action plan did not complete it, and 42 per cent. of the trainees who completed the scheme returned to unemployment. I stress three key points on employment training mentioned in the report. First, it has an unacceptably high drop-out rate. Secondly, however they arise, the high drop-out rates represent a waste of public money and the programme's failure to give trainees the necessary skills to find jobs and careers. Thirdly, the Committee wants the Government to put more emphasis on higher-quality training in view of the fact that unemployment has fallen.
We must address the need to increase the quality of the training elements and resources given to improve the skill levels of people, at whatever level. The Government should respond to the lower numbers using the schemes by using the resources that have already been earmarked to improve the training provision, and not by reducing the amount of money spent. That choice falls to Ministers, who have the option to react in either direction. They have been wholly mistaken and used the opportunity to try to save money rather than to improve the provision that we are able to offer such people. If we look at the employment, training and educational opportunities for young people in other countries, it is hard not feel that we have neglected and left behind some of those in this country who could benefit from a greater input than they currently receive.
One point that has not so far been raised is specific to rural communities such as mine. The allowances and help given to those entering the schemes in rural areas—compared to those who simply continue to claim benefit


and do not go on to training or educational schemes—do not meet the extra cost that some people face when taking up the courses. That has been true for a long time, and it is still true. Some people coming to my surgeries feel that they cannot afford to take some of the courses available, whereas they would be able to if they had allowances and support from the Government.
Part of the problem is not merely the quality of the courses or the opportunities given, but the ability of people to make use of them. Some people may have to look after a family, and some single mothers may have to look after their children. Such people may not be able to afford to go on the courses. That problem must be addressed, because it cannot be acceptable that people genuinely committed to getting themselves out of difficulties find they cannot financially afford to do so.
The records on spending and projected spending on training shows that the January expenditure plans are that spending on training and education programmes is to fall from £2·5 billion for 1990–91 to £2·4 billion for 1991–92. That is a reflection of the fall in unemployment, although we could have a long debate about what that fall shows in terms of such people obtaining work. The juggling of figures that has taken place has allowed them to fall into disrepute, but there have been some real falls which should be welcomed. Why not take the opportunity presented for improving the training for the rest? I believe that all hon. Members would acknowledge that, more than anything else, employers are now talking about a lack of the right people with the necessary skills to fill the places available.
Last year it was estimated that British industry was short of about 30,000 experienced information technology staff. However, the same report predicted that by 1993 Britain would be short of 100,000 such experienced staff if we continue with the present IT training. The widespread use of up-to-date IT and people with the skills to operate it is imperative in every sector of our business, industrial and educational life. The need for such IT skills is a sign of the need for a better-resourced education system, and better provision of IT equipment and training opportunities.
In my constituency, the Cornwall information technology centre has pulled out of providing such training programmes for those on the information technology schemes. That is an example of the sort of problems that have arisen from the recent changes that have taken place in the funding of the management side of such courses. The hon. Member for Swindon gave an example of how he had been able to obtain extra funds when a problem had arisen over the provision of training. In my case, that was not possible. The changes that have been made to the management and decision-making structure, while sometimes welcome, have led to difficulties in pinning down who is responsible for sorting out the problems. I have received a series of letters that effectively transferred to somebody else the responsibility for the decision and the reason for Cornwall ITEC pulling out. It was a circular argument.
It is to be deeply regretted that the major supplier of information technology training to those, mainly young, people should be pulled out. One of the worst experiences I have had recently in relation to training, young people and opportunities was with a number of young people who had been at the Cornwall ITEC and found themselves completely left out in the cold when they were halfway through their courses. I do not lay the blame at the door

of the Government—there was something wrong with the system that meant that those people were let down Even if there was a good reason for a long-term decision to change the courses—I do not believe that there was—I do not understand why, and I do not believe that it is right, the change should have been implemented in such a way that the Cornwall ITEC felt obliged to stop providing courses for people in the middle of gaining qualifications after a long period of working towards them. Those people were thrown onto the street without gaining any benefit from the work they had been doing for a long time.
We must do more towards adopting a more systematic approach to training and providing better provision for retraining that brings together all the qualifications. The Government have started to do that, but very little has happened yet. We should bring together all the qualifications for the 16-to-18 age group, and those who return to education later, so that they all work towards a recognised system of qualifications at suitable levels. I acknowledge that that has been done in part, but it should be extended to ensure the development of a full-blooded modular system that people can re-enter or leave, knowing that the work they do is adding to their qualifications.
If there is any issue other than spending on which we will disagree for ever across the Floor of the House, I hope that it will not be the development of an integrated approach, so that people may have an opportunity to gain new qualifications. That will produce a more adaptable work force better suited to a growing and changing economy—getting away from the short-term, narrow approach to training that involves qualifying people for a specific job in isolation from everything else that is going on, and the attitude that once people are trained for a job, they will never need to train again. That is not true now, if it ever was. The Government have only scratched the surface of the radical changes that are needed.
The Government say that the implementation of such changes are a priority for them, as have all the parties represented in the House, yet every right hon. and hon. Member knows that, when it comes to the individual constituent, something is still missing. We are not filling all the gaps that exist and offering all the opportunities that people need. Time and again in our constituency work, we come across people who, in one way or another, fall through the holes in the system. If this debate can help change that, it will have made a real contribution.
I feel particularly strongly about training, as do many other right hon. and hon. Members. The report clearly demonstrates that we have not yet succeeded in meeting the aims that I have described.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I will not join the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in his criticisms of employment training because from my reading of the Select Committee's report it is clear that more than 200,000 people a year are helped by it, most obtain jobs after receiving that training, and most believe that ET assisted them to do that. To me, that counts as success. It may not quite live up to the hype that surrounded ET a few years ago, but helping 200,000 people a year to get jobs that they previously did not have seems to me pretty good going. I place on record my congratulations to the people concerned.
What of the people who are not so easily helped by ET, such as those suffering from chronic illness, mental problems, or difficulties of illiteracy—which has surfaced in my area? I am not in the least surprised that the Committee found that 16 per cent. of those receiving ET have problems of illiteracy or innumeracy. A number of other problems also exist, and it is to those that I turn my attention.
The Select Committee skated over the wide variety of problems that prevent many people from obtaining jobs. For example, most trainees are over 30, and are returning to work after redundancy or unemployment, or—as the report observes in just half a sentence—after caring for their families. There is, first, the problem of ageism—discrimination against people simply because they are regarded as too old. I suspect that there also exists somewhere along the line the problem of sexism. That applies particularly to women returning to work after caring for their families.
There is no doubt that we need to recruit from both categories. The number of 16 to 25-year-olds available for the work force over the next 10 years will drop from 8 million currently to about 6 million. If all the other schemes and hopes that we have come to fruition, many more will be staying on at college and be unavailable for work. The Department of Employment estimates that, by 2000, 90 per cent. of all new jobs will have to go to women. Many of them will be women returning to work in the way that I described. However, we find that the returners experience great difficulties—and the women among them most of all.
Resistance comes not from the women themselves, or from their husbands and families—who are often extremely encouraging—but from personnel directors in boardrooms and businesses throughout the country. They are precisely the people who ought to know better. A survey undertaken by Gallup on behalf of the employment agency Brook Street, "Ageism—A Problem of the 1990s", received extensive press coverage last week. That survey of 250 personnel directors found that 86 per cent. of them preferred to recruit under-35s. Two thirds preferred people aged 22 to 35, and a further 30 per cent. wanted under-25s. In other words, those personnel directors wanted to select their staff from a diminishing pool.
The reasons most often given by companies for having age criteria were that young people were not set in their ways, are quick thinking, have more stamina, and better fit the dynamic image that many companies want to cultivate. That rules out most of the people in this Chamber. One wonders what those personnel directors think they are up to. There is no doubt that there is extensive discrimination against most women.
A separate survey of 1,000 older employees also commissioned by Brook Street showed that nearly 80 per cent. had been turned down for a job on age grounds. In another poll, three in five applicants believed that there should be no age limits in job advertisements. Sixty per cent. of employers said that demographic changes will affect their recruitment policy in the next five years, so they all know about them. One in three said that they intend to make more use of women returning to work. However, when employers were asked into what age categories they thought certain staff should fall, two thirds answered that

secretaries should be under 35, and three quarters thought that receptionists should also be under 35. What is to be done in a country that is now short of manpower in so many places—and literally short of man-power—when almost 90 per cent. of personnel directors prefer dolly birds?
However, when personnel directors were asked which categories of employment they feel are most appropriate for the over-50s, they name company chairmen and company cleaners. That tells us a lot about the ignorance, stupidity and prejudices of many of the people responsible for recruitment in this country. I exclude from that criticism a number of businesses. The DIY retail chain B and Q has gone against the age trend by staffing one of its stores entirely with over-50s. It feels that the scheme at Macclesfield, in Cheshire, will give many older people a new lease on working life. Good for them. I am sure that the company will receive an excellent response in terms of loyalty from that work force.
Age discrimination affects women far more than men. Two in five interviewed for the survey said that a woman having the same skills as a man is more likely to be turned down because of her age. Those of us past 35 are not ready to give up just yet. That is just as true for women Members of Parliament as it is for the men.
There is no doubt that employers know about impending problems and that they will have to change their employment training and procedures. One third of all companies polled said that they are prepared to meet staffing needs by attracting women returners. The majority of them, particularly in the south, are willing to consider incentives such as flexible working hours, job sharing, and time off during holiday periods. However, there was a marked reluctance towards providing help with child care, which is the most urgent and pressing need. Only 8 per cent. of companies are interested in making that provision. It is no use the hon. Member for Fyfe, Central (Mr. McLeish) pointing at my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The fact is that the civil service is addressing those issues far more than private employers, and is in many ways setting an excellent example—particularly in respect of senior women. I look at the Box and see that they are all very pleased.
Only 5 per cent. of employers are prepared to give financial help with child care and, despite the recent tax changes, only 10 per cent. would provide workplace nurseries. That survey was undertaken after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his very welcome announcement. Clearly there is a large gap between the preferences of personnel directors and managers and public opinion. As The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday, there is overwhelming public support for increased availability of child care facilities for working mothers. The percentage in favour in another Gallup poll on that aspect is much higher than it used to be.
When my hon. Friend the Minister has a go at companies and their employment practices, and tells them that they are pushing up wage rates, he should also point out to them that a substantial pool of excellent labour is available—people who want to return to work, have the necessary skills and are keen to make themselves useful. They are mainly women returners, but—as the survey has shown—many men are keen to get back to work, and need advice, support and assistance.
Retraining the returners is a very different proposition from training young people. Many returners lack confidence, as they may not have been at work for 15 or 20 years; the style of training that is adopted for them needs to be different from that applied to 16 to 18-year-olds or people who are on work experience. The first step is to restore their confidence and be sensitive to their anxieties. They may also take a while to start learning, as they may not have been in the classroom for 30 years; it is inappropriate to expect everyone to respond in exactly the same way. Later, of course, they often prove much better and more committed employees, but the traning systems must recognise their initial needs.
The Brook Street study showed that young people were often preferred by employers because
They are more familiar with modern technology.
That is one of the most unfair comments that could be made by personnel directors about both women and men returners. Frequently, the reason the older workers are less familiar with new technology is that no one has ever given them the opportunity to become familiar with it. What, above all, saps the confidence of a woman returning to work after 20 years is walking into a secretarial office that is full of word processors: she may not even know how to switch them on.
We are often training the untrainable, instead of employing the employable who want to work. Often that is due to sheer prejudice. Perhaps some of the vast sums now directed at training should be aimed at the personnel directors who are so short-sighted about what women want, and what they can offer. Many training directors need retraining themselves, and fast.
I commend those thoughts to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That Class VI, Vote 1 be reduced by £100,000 in respect of Subhead H1 (Skills Training Agency running costs).
The £100,000 is a nominal sum covering payments to consultants, and to three civil servants who were given time during work to prepare a work plan to take over 46 skill centres. The skill centre giveaway is becoming a major scandal. I believe that privatisation is wrong in principle; but to do it behind closed doors—as it has been done, with the Minister's approval—is doubly wrong.
Since my Adjournment debate on 15 May, information has come to light—not, I need hardly add, from the Minister, who has been reluctant to provide any information, but from other sources. There were at least 61 other bidders, who are listed in early-day motion 1106. Before the Minister says that there is a possible error, let me anticipate him. Mr. C. F. Lakin is listed as a potential bidder. As the motion says that
the following potential bidders were not informed that £14 million was to be donated by the Government to the `purchasers' of skillcentres",
it is clear that Mr. Lakin—who subsequently became a director of TICC Skill Centres and the recipient of £2 million—was one of those who did obtain some information.
The Minister tried, more or less in vain, to defend his position on the BBC television programme "Face the Facts" on 17 May. The programme featured comments from people who were not told that £14 million was available. I will quote some of them—people who

broadcast publicly, some of them doubtless sympathetic to the political position of the Minister and the Prime Minister. One person said:
It's fairly obvious that if we'd have known that there had been Government money available, our view would have been completely and utterly different. I felt, and feel, that the financial people should have come back to us, and made that simple fact available".
Among the other bidders was Geoff Bowers of the Sheffield-based Bowford Engineering Services. His company was keenly interested in obtaining the Ipswich skill centre, because it is one of the few companies that are accepted to train welders to the high standards demanded by the nuclear industry. The centre was also close to the Sizewell B construction project. Mr. Bowers said:
After due consideration we decided that there was simply too much distance between the losses, that in particular the Ipswich Centre was making, and the viable commercial operation.
Mr. O'Reilly of Wimpey—not an inconsiderable organisation, and one that is probably politically sympathetic to the Government—said:
We were notified that the basis of the bid which had been sort of roughly agreed was no longer valid, that they weren't prepared to accept a bid in that form. Under the circumstances, being very disappointed with all the work we'd put into it and so on, we could do nothing other than actually withdraw from the sales of the skill centres we were interested in. They moved the goal posts at the last minute, and it was impossible for us to put together any sort of bid. I think the joint venture that we were putting forward which had been acceptable a month or six weeks beforehand, was no longer acceptable. I was always aware that there was an in-house bid going on, as everybody I think bidding was, and I really didn't see that much difference between what we actually proposed, and what actually came out at the end of the day.
Why was Wimpey turned down?
My final quote comes from a representative of Essex Training Limited, a company owned by the motor trade in Essex. Mr. David Hale said:
Prior to making our final offer, we said, tongue in cheek, jokingly, 'We're taking on all of these responsibilities, what's the chances of any of the so-called sweeteners that we hear about?' And immediately, the atmosphere became very frosty and prickly, and it was made abundantly clear to us that's not the things that you should say, and not the line in which they were going to go down. But subsequently, we found that people have been paid to take skill centres off the Government. If we had known, then of course we could have made it a serious suggestion.
Why was that organisation rejected? Was it because the people who rejected it were chums of the three civil servants who were making an insider bid? That is a serious point, and it is no good the Minister shaking his head.
Since my Adjournment debate, 400 people have been made redundant by Astra Training Service. It got the plum that Jack Horner pulled out of the pie: the 46 skill centres and the £11 million. The Metel firm in Liverpool has sacked 27 people. I wonder whether this was not a simple case of the Government's bribing those organisations to carry out Government policy.
The Minister has uttered platitudes about the three civil servants being removed from "sensitive decisions" in April 1989. However, the Crown employee rules produced by the Cabinet Office were simply jettisoned. They should be restored in every detail, and applied on every occasion.
The three civil servants responsible for the skill centres were also responsible for the deficits that the Government complained about. That raises the question of how those deficits occurred. Was there a gleam in the eye of civil servants, who knew that they might be able to pick a plum out of the pie that the Government were about to provide


for them? There is a rich stench of internal corruption about this. At best, Ministers have been foolish. The stench will remain whatever they say, and one of the problems is that they say very little.
No figure has been given for the value of the assets transferred, at no cost to Astra and to TICC Skill Centres Ltd., plus more than £13 million which was transferred to them. The total value of the land and assets given away, with minimal conditions, is at least in excess of £120 million.
While that was going on, honest straightforward bidders were excluded. I quote Mr. Bowers again; describing what happened when they discovered that between £13 million and £14 million was being handed out, he says:
We were absolutely flabbergasted. It's fairly obvious that if we'd known there'd been Government money available, our view would have been completely and utterly different. I mean as a private company, and we are very much the children of the Thatcher revolution in the fact that we take our own risks, we don't borrow public money, and maybe we should have thought in terms of subsidies. We simply didn't. I felt, and feel, that the financial people should have come back to us, and made that simple fact available to us. I think that we should have been given an opportunity, if that sort of money was on the table, for a re-evaluation of the bid.
Finally, I quote from a person who has written to me from a skill centre which has been privatised. He says:
I would like to thank you for your stand against the privatisation of the Skill Centre Network. I work at the … skill centre"—
I shall not give the name, so that they will not be victimised by the Minister's chums—
which has become part of the TICC skillcentres Ltd. … which acquired 3 other skill centres.
The four are East Lancashire, St. Helen's, Cumbria and Ipswich, thus retaining anonymity
I would like to bring to your attention the way in which our centres plus £2,000,000 of Tax Payers' Money were acquired. The Centres … and all personnel were given to Mr. Howard Lieu, accountant; Mr. Chris Lakin, university administrator; and Mr. Clive Ibbison-Steel, general production manager … This new company, T.I.C.C. Ltd. which had no past experience of running a training organisation, nor had the Directors, managed to be in a position to receive £2,000,000 plus 4 Skillcentres with all their assets (Cumbria Freehold) the rest leasehold. This seems difficult to believe but it's true. We at … Skillcentre would be obliged if you could ask the Minister concerned the following questions".
I am asking the Minister now and I look forward to the answers.
How could 3 individuals with no experience of running a multi-million pound Skillcentre Network, suddenly find that they have hit the jackpot? They now own 4 Skillcentres plus £2,000,000. How much was their personal financial input? Who vetted these people and why were they allowed to proceed with their so called bid? I have enclosed Rantfix and T.I.C.C. company information. Again, I would like to thank you for your efforts on our behalf and I look forward to hearing from you.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and I want one final assurance—that no Ministers, when they leave their posts, will join any of these companies to share in the spoils when the Government sell the lot off.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: The report of the Select Committee on Employment contains some disappointments because of the nature of its criticisms. However, no surprises came out of it. The sort of training that we have

now accepted that the Government and the country need, which requires the association of industry and a wide range of training organisations, is relatively new to this country.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was quite right when he said that present training difficulties and the lack of training in the past were the fault of the country and not of any Government. In truth it was. Our approach to training was extremely static. For many years,on the industrial scene we accepted apprenticeships, which varied enormously from good to bad, and an academic structure within which the content of many courses changed very little, although they were updated at the higher level. We got into a rut.
Some 10 years ago, we had to consider the whole concept of training. We had little experience of how to proceed. What has happened since? Perhaps the most significant thing that has happened in the past 10 years is that the Government, training organisations and those in education have not remained static in their approach to training. With the employment training scheme, we have made training more flexible.
One part of the report which causes some concern is the way that it refers to drop-outs. Drop-outs have been a problem in almost every voluntary training scheme that I have had experience of in technical colleges, adult education courses and employment training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) stressed the user-friendly aspect of training. I hope that, as a follow-up to the Select Committee's report, there will be an analysis of why people do not attend training courses and why people drop out—apart from those people who drop out because they have moved to a job. There should also be an analysis of those people who finish courses. Only when we have done that will we be able to modify training to provide a better structure in the future.
Most of what we doing now has been learnt over a relatively short time but can be developed through analysis of the results of present schemes. Almost certainly, much of the training which has been carried out in this country has not been structured in such a way that it enabled people to move from stage to another or to pick up a course again if they were made redundant or moved. It has not been possible to move easily back into training. If we were to analyse training methods and the way that people enter further training, we could keep up the momentum in training systems. We need a momentum for change in training, and so do the individuals who use it. We have not been successful in that respect, because that sort of training is relatively new to this country.
Many people do not find training acceptable or easy to take to. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) commented inadvertently that people may not have been at school for 20 years and are therefore not used to the classroom. We should not consider modern training as merely another classroom exercise of the sort that we did at the age of 12, 13 or 14. Training is a wider concept than having to get used to a classroom atmosphere. That sort of training is fine for academics. Much employment training and youth training is action and job-orientated, although not necessarily for a specific job. I am sure that many people find it difficult to maintain an interest in that type of training. It is difficult to concentrate for long on learning, even if it is practical learning, without motivation.
Hon. Members have pointed out that many people who go on training schemes are not best fitted to start learning again or perhaps they have just left school and are on such a course for the first time.
The group of people which worries me most are those at the bottom of the academic ladder—for example, some young people coming out of what used to be called schools for the educationally subnormal and those young people who are slightly handicapped. It is important to provide the cash and effort needed to provide them with the resources to enable them to make the most of their potential. We are still not coping very well with that.
I am not complacent about what the Government have done, although they have done well. Training is dynamic and must keep progressing. There are gaps, especially for disadvantaged people, and they should be addressed now and in the future.
We have not concentrated sufficiently on the continuation of education in business, in the engineering profession and all the other professions. The Engineering Council and other organisations are trying to encourage training, but that has not been welcomed with the enthusiasm for which one might have hoped. Figures show that industry is training more people than ever before and that it is spending more money on training than ever before. Unless, however, people in industry are trained continually, the skills that we need will not be available. We praise Germany and Japan for the training that they provide, but that is an insult to the many fine professional people and technicians who work in British industry. Many of the people who work in the engineering industry are technically as good as any that one will find in Germany or Japan. If opportunities are provided for them, they are enthusiastic about increasing their knowledge and qualifications.
We have been slow to train managers. It must be nearly 30 years since I last went on a management training course. At that time, the Institution of Industrial Managers was just ticking over. However, in those days we looked forward to the time when the majority of industrial managers would have a management qualification. That did not happen, not because the institutes were lax but because of higher management's lack of enthusiasm to train their personnel, or send them for training. If managers are not trained in management skills, and if they do not update them, there is no hope for the future. Nothing changes faster than the need for management to train. Their ideas and their skills must change if they are to manage effectively. The most difficult thing to manage is change. If during the past 10 years we have not learnt that the management of change is the key to the future and that it is a continuing process, we have not learnt very much.
Employment training has been criticised, but its foundations are sound. By means of good analysis, it can be made more user friendly. Through the training and education councils we shall be able to provide the best training for people. The continuation of education and training is vital in almost every aspect of business life. Moreover, if managers are not fully trained and are not enthusiastic about being trained, the prospects for their employees to receive training will be damaged. If we train our managers and their employees, industry will succeed. Employees will then be enthusiastic and will be sufficiently trained to be capable of being employed.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) that the skills of some of our personnel are as good as any in the world. The problem is that we do not have enough of them. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) said that the Opposition carp about the Government's recommendations. The Opposition's role is to point out to the general public what the issues are and how things ought to be improved. It is important to face the facts. The Government use the word "training" as a buzz word, but when we compare the United Kingdom with other countries we find that the very opposite is the case.
The Select Committee on Employment reported that this year £200 million less will be spent on training than in the previous year. Whenever the Government make a cut, they try to justify it by saying that the numbers have gone down. They play the numbers game. When, however, the Government find that they have an additional £200 million, they ought to try to improve the quality and standard of training, which so often are nowhere near good enough. As we live in a highly competitive world we must improve the quality and the standards of training.
We are faced with a disastrous balance of payments deficit—the highest in our history. The only way to get rid of it is to export. To be successful, we must export excellent products which are better than those of our competitors and they must be competitively priced.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton referred to the need to improve management training. We do not concentrate sufficiently on that. Seven out of 10 British managers receive no training. If they are to lead their companies effectively, that is a serious indictment. We made a grave mistake about eight or nine years ago when we abolished most of the industrial training boards. I pay tribute to the man who set them up—Lord Carr. He established the industrial training board in the early 1960s because we were in such a mess; industry was making no provision for training. Soon after the 1979 election, the Tory party decided to abolish most of the industrial training boards. That was a disaster.
Education is the key to improving ability and potential. The Department of Education and Science, however, has been starved of funds. According to a press release that I received only today from the Department of Education and Science:
It must be a priority for all those responsible for post-16 education and training that the provision they offer equips young people with the skills and qualities that employers need in their workforce.
But they are fancy words with no substance, as is demonstrated when one examines the provision of education. Earlier in the debate reference was made to the lack of numeracy and literacy. It is obvious that, if people cannot grasp the basics, they will never be technological experts. We seem to be going wrong with the basics, but we cannot have one without the other. It is therefore important that the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science should work in tandem.
I represent a Manchester constituency and I have experience in education there. I have always supported the colleges of further education. The further education system used to be far stronger than it is today. One of its great strengths was public accountability. Further education was not organised just by the local politicians


and educationists. Industry was represented in the colleges of further education and managers took an interest in training. It is often implied that industry never had any input into further education, but that is a complete fallacy that should be refuted today.
Despite the success of colleges of further education—and they had considerable success—further education in Manchester has suffered savage cuts. The further education budget for this year is £18 million; last year it was £24 million. It is no investment in future technology to starve colleges of further education of funds. Last year, there were three colleges of further education; this year, because of the financial crisis, there will be only two. Last year, they were allocated only £500,000 for equipment. Anyone who knows anything about technical equipment will understand that £500,000 does not go very far.
The Government have a strong preference for private agencies. There is a great myth that something is better because it is private. But many of those so-called private agents were not qualified as the experts in the further education colleges were. They constantly put profit motives before quality training. Already Manchester has experienced many disastrous schemes which were set up by the Department of Employment. Only a few months ago one organisation collapsed, ditching 1,000 trainees. That is what happens in a privatised education system.
Now the training and education councils have come to Manchester and have been allocated well in excess of £10 million which will be administered by private companies. I keep asking questions, but I never get satisfactory answers about how the costs will be monitored. We get all sorts of promises from civil servants, but as soon as anything goes wrong it is hushed up and covered up. It is all supposed to be a great success, but the private organisations suddenly disappear. Cost monitoring will not be the same as it was when training was publicly organised by the further education colleges. There will be less accountability for decisions about what training should involve and concentrate on.
The engineering industry is one of our most important industries. It is the biggest exporter of British industry and the biggest money spinner, along with the chemical industry. The engineering industry is now talking about the new engineering training agency. According to the Government's diktat, that agency will be funded by subscriptions and fees. That immediately means a reduced budget, which means cuts in training, especially in small firms. Usually, small firms do not have adequate training. They will not be funded and they certainly will not volunteer any money. That was a great problem in the early 1960s, when Lord Carr had to decide to make some proper provision for training. Because the new private training agency has been set up, there will no longer be access to European funding because they are not public bodies. Hundreds of thousands of pounds that would have been available for training in Britain will no longer be available.
We already have serious skill shortages, but we only face them when it is too late. I agree that Britain's skill force has the highest technical skills, but it is the smallest in Europe. I can illustrate that. A publication that I picked up the other day referred to a recent survey published by the European Commission which contained a pecking

order of the proportion of skills in European industrial work forces. According to the survey, France had 80 per cent. skilled workers, Italy 79 per cent., Holland 76 per cent., Germany 67 per cent., Belgium 62 per cent., Denmark 62 per cent., Ireland 59 per cent., Spain 56 per cent. and Portugal 50 per cent. The United Kingdom was bottom of the pile with 38 per cent. skilled workers. That is where we stand in the provision of skills. Everything has to be privatised. We have private agents with fancy titles, but they are meaningless and they do not come up with the goods.
Today I received a letter from the British Institute of Management saying:
The recent European Commission survey indicating that Britain lagged woefully behind other Community countries in the proportion of skilled workers in out workforce shows that much more needs to be done.
That is not a picture of the success that the Minister may attempt to present to the House tonight.
I have just a few questions. Why do our European competitors take such a different view from that of the Conservative Government in Britain? Why do Japanese companies give greater importance to industry and training, and achieve such great success? Why are trade unions not encouraged to become involved? The trade unions represent the producers. Nowadays there is always a confrontation between the Government and the trade unions. I assure the Minister that the trade unions are not Luddites; their jobs and futures are involved.
Some Conservative Members may be involved in the stock exchange, floating money about in companies. The difference for trade unionists is that they devote their whole lives to their industries. That is why they see the matter differently. I get the feeling that the Minister is not serious about this. He is smirking and nodding his head, but I am making a sensible plea for industry to move away from confrontation. There must be a partnership. I come from industry, so I mean what I say and I do not want empty gestures.
There are many subcontractors in the offshore oil industry and there are men working on two-week contracts. I am sure that there is no adequate training and it is possible that some of the disasters on the oil rigs have been the result of inadequate training. There must be changes. We should do away with two-week contracts because the men on the rigs are not properly catered for or protected. We must improve; if we do not, we shall lose for the rest of the 1990s.

Mr. James Paice: I want to remind my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members of my long interest in training. I thereby declare an interest—albeit faint, but it is right that I should declare it—as I used to run a training company and I remain a director of the parent holding company. I have, therefore, a particular interest in training.
I have been listening to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), with whom I served for about two years on the Select Committee on Employment. We cannot let him get away with one or two of his remarks. He referred to education. Most Conservative Members agree—although Opposition Members would not share the view—that many of today's problems stem from the failure of education to keep pace with the ever-increasing demands being put on it. To


pretend that it is simply a matter of money, as the hon. Gentleman did, is far from the truth. Literacy and numeracy are not expensive skills to teach. They do not require much equipment or fancy buildings. However, we fall down on those skills. We heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), that many people on employment training are without proper literacy and numeracy skills.
The hon. Member for Blackley also referred to colleges of further education. Most of us would say that when further education colleges came into existence they did a good job. The problem was that they did not move with the times and that they became entrenched in the systems they had used in the 1950s and 1960s. Such systems were not up to date for the demands of the 1980s.
It was not until we moved into the training programmes which are the basis of this evening's debate—the youth training scheme, employment training and its predecessors —and which involved private contractors that employers started to place demands on further education colleges to which they had to respond. The hon. Member for Blackley referred to the public accountability of such colleges. The most important accountability is to the people who will employ those whom the colleges are training. The change has come about as a result of the introduction of private contractors, whom the hon. Member for Blackley spent some time rubbishing.
It is a matter of great concern to us all that Britain is still so far behind some of our competitors in training. However, we must not pretend that all is gloom and that nothing is getting better. We must not underestimate the fact that expenditure by all sectors of industry has increased dramatically in the past few years to £19 billion per annum. That is a major increase of about £7 billion on the figure shown in a survey carried out only three years ago. It may not be enough, but let us not talk ourselves into believing that nothing is happening.
It is even clearer to anybody who studies training over the past three or four decades that an awareness of a skills shortage is no new phenomenon. We have lagged woefully behind in training since the second world war. Why were the training boards set up if we did not have a skills problem'? The Government of the time believed that the boards would meet that need. However, the training boards did not achieve their aim.
It has seemed right to Labour and to Conservative Governments to try initiative after initiative to improve the level of skills, but they have failed. When the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) referred earlier to the youth opportunities programme, which the Labour Government introduced in the late 1970s, my heart sank. Of all the initiatives tried by Labour and Conservative Governments, that must be pretty near the bottom of the pile. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present to hear what I have to say. He referred to the real value of the wage being paid then, which was £19 a week. That underlines clearly the fundamental difference between the youth opportunities programme, and the youth training scheme—and now youth training. The youth opportunities programme was purely a make-work scheme—an opportunity to get people off the streets for six months and to pay them to do something.
When the youth training scheme was introduced in 1983, it was a major step forward. It was not a make-work scheme. It was not intended simply to provide work, so

one should not consider the payments to trainees as wages. The young people were receiving training and, in the long term, training is of greater benefit to them than a few pounds a week would be.
We seem to have a regular mental block about the concept of integrating training with work experience. I am the first to accept that there have been times when standards in YTS, in YT and in employment training have been woefully bad to an extent that none of us as individuals would be prepared to support. However, we cannot and should not damn the whole scheme simply because standards are wrong.
I served on the area manpower board for Norfolk and Suffolk until I was elected to the House. I stressed time and again that we should be far more rigorous in trying to sort out the sheep from the goats among the providers, not by some easy division into public bodies and private bodies, but into those who were providing quality training and those who were not. The Government then introduced the approved training organisation status which was a major step forward, but it was not draconian enough in weeding out many organisations and managing agencies that were failing to produce the required standards.
We have heard much about money this evening. However, we must also remember the effect of the demographic change especially on youth training. In his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr) referred to the fact that Bootle is about 18th from the top of the list of places with the highest employment.

Mr. Leighton: It is 28th.

Mr. Paice: That may be the case. However, there are many constituencies at the other end. My constituency is fifth from the bottom of the same table with unemployment of 1·2 per cent. That is great good fortune for my constituents and it means that businesses are crying out for people to work for them. Businesses recognise the market demand for them to contribute and to pay well to gain employees. They recognise the need to participate in youth training as the means of training their young people. We cannot glibly say that the allowances are not sufficient. In vast areas of the country, especially in the south-east and London, employers need young people to work for them. They recognise that the market demands that they pay a substantial contribution to employ those young people.
I welcome the changeover from YTS to YT. We are now moving away from something that has long been a weakness of the training schemes introduced by Governments of all parties, and emphasising outcome rather than time-serving. It is the outcome of the training that is important, and it does not matter whether it is achieved in a week or in five years. We are trying to enhance people's ability and improve their skills. To insist on a fixed period, as we have in training schemes going right back to the old apprenticeships, is to fail to recognise different learning and skill abilities and the great advances that have been made in training technology and techniques.
Many of those points apply equally to ET. What is missing—perhaps particularly from ET but also from YT —is motivation, not through money but through personal stimulus. I believe that part of the problem lies in the low calibre of many of those who run training operations and —I am sorry to say—many of those working in the


employment agencies. That is part of the reason—only a small part—why 46 per cent. do not progress from their interview at the jobcentre to the first action-plan work in a training agency: they simply do not have the necessary enthusiasm or motivation. We must examine more carefully why that is because we are talking about 46 per cent. of the whole. The Chairman of the Select Committee referred to other percentages, but they were percentages of the 54 per cent. who actually went along. In numerical terms, the biggest chunk consists of drop-outs who never even start on the scheme. We must consider that as a matter of urgency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who has left his place—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] He is hiding; I have to remind the House that, as he is behind the Bar, he is still outside the Chamber. My hon. Friend said that it is those in work who are the most important. The House spends a lot of time debating the 5·7 per cent. of the population who are unemployed. But if we are worried about Britain's economy and the importance of training to it, we should concern ourselves more with training for the 94·3 per cent. who are in jobs because, to a greater or lesser extent, they contribute to the wealth of Britain. For far too long we have failed to recognise that a skill learned at 19, 20 or 21 is not sufficient to last someone for the rest of his life. Updating and refresher courses are most important.
We must also recognise the importance of management training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said. Far too many people are promoted because they are the best technicians rather than because they will make the best supervisors or managers. We have gone a long way to improving high-grade management training. We have new MBA courses, and training for top managers is improving dramatically, but training for first and second-tier management often makes or breaks a company and we have a long way to go in that. It is perhaps more important in small and medium-sized companies than in large companies, which tend to have good training operations.
Let us look to the future. I have already referred to the failure of many previous initiatives. Should we now make the political choice to adopt a programme that mirrors more closely those of our major competitors, such as the United States, Germany and even Sweden? Those countries have operations where the employers are in the driving seat. The training and enterprise councils introduced by the Government are based on what is happening in those other countries. It has to be said that many of those countries would not experience the drop-out rate that we have with ET, for the simple reason that one's receipt of unemployment benefit depends on one's attendance of the scheme.
In that respect, our operation is far more lax than those of many other countries. The TECs that are rapidly coming into being will go a long way towards providing employers with the opportunity to get into the driving seat. We need look for no greater justification for the new arrangements than the fact that virtually the whole country is covered by TECs; the programme is already well ahead of the target set for it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when he

first announced the establishment of TECs only a little over a year ago. We must respect the opportunities that TECs give.
There is an alternative, about which we may hear a little more in a few minutes. We could go back to a compulsory levy, as the Labour party proposes. We could impose a 0·5 per cent. payroll tax and appoint more bureaucrats to administer it. That would mirror the failure of the industrial training boards: a bureaucracy was required to administer them and they failed to do what really matters.
I believe that the Government's policy on publicly funded training is absolutely right. We must devolve responsibility for the management of, and expenditure on, the schemes to those who can make real decisions—the businesses—and, through them, to the TECs.
If we debate this matter two or three years hence, we shall find that things have improved dramatically. We shall find that, whereas previous initiatives had failed, this initiative has worked.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Like most hon. Members, I have no objection to the allocation of money from the Consolidated Fund to support expenditure on improved training facilities, although, like many of my hon. Friends, I am somewhat concerned that £159 million has been taken out. We should have done training a better service had that sum been kept in, particularly had the money been spent in the interests of better opportunities in engineering and the development of engineering skills.
I make no apology for concentrating on the engineering aspects of training. We have to answer a fundamental question: can we afford training—or, rather, can we afford not to have training? That is the essence of the argument. If there is one thing that frustrates me it is Britain's attitude—this is not necessarily the Government's problem—to those in the engineering profession who are considered to be second-class professionals, whose skills come somewhere below those of lawyers, doctors, dentists, artists and financial manipulators.
"Engineering The Future", a document produced in January this year by the Engineering Council and the Secondary Heads Association, says under the heading "Proposals for action":
The Finniston Report made this point in 1981: 'Long-term improvements in the supply of engineers will be to no avail—indeed, may not occur—unless the contributions of the current stock of engineers are harnessed to greater effect than hitherto'.
What applied in 1981 still applies in 1990. The document continues:
A young Oxbridge graduate made a similar point this year: 'At (a household name in British industry) I would have been a junior assistant engineer in ten years' time. At (a London-based business consultancy partnership) I could be advising the Chairman of that company in less than a week'. In this comment, and in the comparative salary figures he quoted, there is a major issue for industry itself to resolve.
In this country the people who are producing the wealth are not recognised as they should be. We have forgotten that the modern economy of this country has been built on the skills and expertise of the legions of engineers who, over the past century in particular, created the wealth of this nation. People such as Stephenson, Parson, Swan and Armstrong, all from my part of the world, and numerous others over the years have given this country a sound industrial base. However, that has now been weakened by the Government's short-sighted policies.
We do not acknowledge those skills as we should. Often the public's perception of engineers is one of greasy overalls and unpleasant working conditions coupled with comparatively low pay at a professional level—that was the impression of the student to whom I referred. That is not an accurate description of an engineer's work. Engineering can be an interesting and rewarding career for a young person. However, unless attitudes change—and the Government can help in changing those attitudes—serious problems will arise as we move towards closer economic links with Europe. In general, engineers in Europe receive proper respect and remuneration, reflecting their position in the professional social structure. Most western European countries understand that their economic future depends to a large degree on professional engineers as wealth creators.
Why has the need for the continued development of craft skills suddenly become of interest to the Department of Employment? Why has the Department suddenly woken up from its deep Rip van Winkle sleep during the 1980s, when the limitations of the YOP, YTS and ET became evident, and suddenly introduced the training credit scheme described in a press release on 27 March from the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education and Science as
A revolutionary new approach to training in this country"?
That is a fine expression. In some parts of the world revolutions cause those responsible for the regime under attack to be shot. I do not advocate that the previous Secretaries of State responsible for inadequate training schemes should be treated in that way because I do not support capital punishment. However, that revolution is being somewhat delayed and the revolutionary torch will not be lit before April next year. Even then it will produce only a glimmer in the dark.
From time to time there will be a number of pilot schemes involving about 10 per cent. of the national total of 16 to 17-year-olds at a time when we lag seriously behind the rest of our western European neighbours. Over a number of years I have had the privilege of being linked through my constituency with a town in Germany on the Rhine called Rhemsied. I have visited that town, which is part of the engineering area of the Rhine valley, on several occasions. It has an engineering training establishment which caters for about 1,000 male and female apprentices —or trainees as we would call them.
That engineering training establishment provides a full range of engineering skills from motor mechanics to electronics, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering. It covers the whole gambit of engineering skills to a very high standard. Indeed, I saw equipment in that training establishment which we do not have in factories in this country. The most interesting point was that that establishment was custom-built as a training centre in 1982 when unemployment in Germany was as high as it was in this country.
Even then, the Germans were prepared for the changes that would happen in the 1990s. They recognised that their economy was going to improve and they were preparing for it. I believe that that was a typical example of what was happening particularly in the northern parts of western Europe at that time. Such things are happening now as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,

North-East (Mr. Leighton) said earlier, that is why most of those countries have a greater number of skilled personnel than we have in Great Britain.
Some action has been taken here. I pay tribute to the Engineering Council, which has introduced the neighbourhood engineering scheme, and, in my part of the world, the northern engineering centre. The latter will develop neighbourhood engineering schemes linking three or four engineers with secondary schools in teams with teachers. My next-door neighbour is an engineer who will be involved in the scheme. As I understand it, he sent his application form off, but has not received a reply. If any scheme requires urgency, it is that one.
I hope that the neighbourhood engineering schemes will provide an opportunity to increase the interests of students and pupils in engineering as a career. I recognise that the Department of Trade and Industry has contributed £612,000 to that scheme. That is a fine gesture, but it is not enough. I argue that it is a little too little and a little too late.
The waste of the enormous engineering talent in the northern region following the demise of mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering in the 1980s threw thousands of skilled personnel on the scrap heap. There should have been opportunities for proper training if those people had been handled properly. Not only did the people with the skills in those industries lose their jobs, but there were fewer opportunities for the apprenticeships that might have followed on in those industries. I saw the decline in my industry, the mining industry, and the lack of opportunity for young people to pick up those skills.
I believe that two generations have lost out in the 1980s. Their chance to pick up those skills will not come again. I believe that another organisation deserves public recognition for its activities in engineering. Through its education and training committee, the Machine Tool Technologies Association has established an educational trust fund with a contribution of more than £400,000. It has encouraged other sponsors for its design and building competition as a flagship scheme. It has accepted a commitment to fund both that and students to take an interest in machine tool manufacturing and to allow employees to continue their studies.
Government encouragement and financial support could assist in the rapid development of such enterprising schemes, but not all trade associations are able or willing to follow the example that I have given. The introduction of training and enterprise councils and the pilot schemes, including one in my county of Northumberland, which I suspect might be hit by the poll tax, and the training credit scheme, if successful, will not be effective until at least 1993 or 1994. Those projects must be seriously affected by the cut of £159 million in Government contributions.
It is already clear that the construction industry training board is prepared to introduce major cuts in its training programme at a time when there is a high demand for skilled workers. A report to that effect appeared in our regional newspapers this week. That cut will penalise the proper development and make vocational training even more industrial based.
That is a national issue. Over the next 10 years it is likely that the economy of this country will suffer severely from the lack of Government initiative in earlier decades. Complacency seems to have been the order of the day in


the Department of Employment. The country cannot afford that attitude if we are to catch up with our European and international competitors.

Mr. Henry McLeish: No one would dispute the fact that the United Kingdom faces a skills crisis, and the Opposition can be forgiven for being deeply cynical about the widening gap between the claims of the ministerial team in the Department of Employment and the skills reality that they are supposed to be tackling.
After 11 years of the Conservative Government, training policies are in a mess. We still have no coherent strategy for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have no policies for the unemployed which do not smack of coercion and employees in the work force seem to be the least important part of the Government's strategy. Obviously there is a widening skills gap between the United Kingdom and Europe and each day that passes shows clearly a developing crisis here even in the funding and application of Government programmes.
Over the past two or three months, we have seen a catalogue of cuts and crises involving TVEI, the Rathbone Society, the Spastics Society and the YMCA, training providers, training agents and training managers who are all suffering not only from massive cuts measured against the previous budgets, but also from panic policy reactions which do the Government no good and certainly do nothing to help improve the quality of our skills base. Recent news from Europe suggests that we are officially at the bottom of the international skills league. That does not give us any satisfaction, but we hope that it shakes the Government from their complacency.
The damning report from the Employment Select Committee demonstrates what most people have believed for a long time—that ET does not provide quality or positive outcomes for the majority of entrants—and certainly has nothing to do with value for money.
Another crisis is creeping up on the country. It started with the election of this Government. It relates to the assault, the undermining and, finally, the dismantling of much of our training infrastructure. I shall spend my brief time talking about that part of the training infrastructure that has been privatised. Obviously, I refer to the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency. We have seen a scandal at the very heart of Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to growing complaints from employers and private companies throughout the country which have been involved. There has been a shabby series of political blunders in the past few months. My hon. Friend was charitable when he described it as possible foolishness. There is growing evidence that the problem goes well beyond foolishness. It is a sensational tale. We want to reveal the serious charges to be levelled against the Government. I hope that the Minister will take those matters very seriously.
It would be bad enough if the debate were only about approximately £135 million of public assets being not sold but given to the private sector. It would not be so bad if the debate were about the £16·4 million of sweeteners that the Government have acknowledged in the estimates. It would not be so bad if the debate were about the £8·6 million that

we believe was concealed in the trading accounts of the Skills Training Agency for the year 1988–89—£8·6 million that was destined to help out with early retirement. It would not be so bad if the debate were only about the way in which civil service employees have been treated.
The Liverpool lockout has been mentioned. There has been the laughable Lambeth matter, in which skills centres have been handed over to people with no experience, no track record and virtually nothing that would endear them to any sensible Government. Obviously, there is a deep sense of betrayal among civil servants at the launch of the Astra Training Services bonanza, whereby 400 civil servants were to be made redundant and removed from tackling the skills crisis in this country. As I said, that would be a sensational story, but we believe that it goes much further than that.
Opposition Members challenge the ministerial team within the Department of Employment for abandoning the Government's much-vaunted sound money approach for showing total contempt for accountability to Parliament, and blatant disregard and disrespect for taxpayers. We are seeing a crisis that was hatched under the previous Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Sadly, that crisis was taken to its logical conclusion by an announcement in the House on 19 February that the centres were to be privatised.
Our charges are quite simple. First, I want briefly to refer to the role of the Ministers, Deloittes, and Mr. Bishell, Mr. Kent and Mr. Wells, who are now the directors of Astra Training Services and were formerly senior civil servants within the Skills Training Agency. Secondly, we wish to talk about the transformation of supply estimates that were brought before the House between March 1989 and February 1990. Thirdly, we want briefly to mention an extraordinary survey that we undertook yesterday with 10 telephone calls to the prospective bidders for the skills agency. What they had to say was certainly damning of the Government. Unless the House takes action to remedy what we have heard, it will clearly bring Parliament into disrepute.
The Government announced that the three civil servants involved would be taken away from sensitive issues of policy and finance in April 1989, but later in a parliamentary answer we found that the three civil servants, Bishell, Kent and Wells, had been working on the privatisation management buy-out since the autumn of 1988. For seven months they had access to sensitive, highly confidential and commercial information about the future of the agency, and they were also working with Deloittes in that process.
The tragedy is that the management buy-out team was being advised by Coopers and Lybrand. The feasibility study for the same Department was undertaken by Deloittes Haskin and Sells. A few months later, they merged to become Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.
To what information were they privy in that seven months between autumn 1988 and April 1989 which gave them a preferable bidding position in any privatisation process and also undoubtedly gave them a competitive edge when faced with the challenge of bids from any other participants in the process? As soon as an interest was declared by the three civil servants about a management buy-out, they should have been immediately taken out of that sensitive arena for the period autumn 1988 to April 1989. It is barely credible that, when faced with such


insider information, the participants in that bidding process could have felt anything other than a deep sense of dismay, anger and betrayal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has mentioned, those people are not traditional allies and friends of the movement and the party that we represent.
Serious charges are being made as to why this matter arose and why the ministerial team in the Department of Employment could not accept that it would be highly damaging. It also meant that people who were bidding for the skill centres would regard it as an elaborate charade.
In March 1989, the supply estimates showed not the accounts of the skills training agency but its income, expenditure and turnover. It was showing a surplus of £16·4 million in March 1989. Why did that surplus turn into a deficit of £22 million by February of this year? Eight months is not long enough for the information upon which the first estimates were based to be redundant by the time the Department of Employment, the Treasury and Ministers had submitted the estimates in February 1990. What is more intriguing is that those same estimates reveal that £40 million was taken out of the employment training budget, £19·2 million of which was then applied to the expenditure totals of the skills training agency. Another £19 million was used as a bookkeeping exercise to cover the Department's expenditure.
The Government may argue that they were going to privatise the agency earlier than anticipated. If that is true, it is simply incompetence. Indeed, we can be charitable and say that it is incompetence and financial mismanagement, and it is. We can say that the Government are complacent about the use of public expenditure—and they are. However, the more serious charge is that there are now serious doubts about the way in which the supply estimates that were presented to the House were handled by the ministerial team in that Department. It is clear that Parliament has been misled by the actions of Ministers when presenting the estimates to the House.
The other argument that the Government may advance is to say that they could not get sufficient numbers to fill the employment training schemes, so income went down. However, if they are arguing that the expenditure figure decreased because it was only a partial year because of the privatisation, how can they cope with a full year of income? The income from employment training and from employers decreased significantly. There was a 40 per cent. cut in the income of the skills training agency between March and February. In the country as a whole, there was only a 5 per cent. cut in employment training expenditure, and yet there was a 40 per cent. cut in the money taken from the skills training agency.
I have said that the Government have at least misled Parliament, but there is a suspicion that things were a great deal worse. We must ask why money is moving about so easily in the Department of Employment budget. Why does expenditure dip and then rise? Why does its income decrease, unrelated to anything that is happening in the country as a whole? In my view, the answer is simply that a combination of ministerial incompetence and of civil servants working to prepare estimates may have created a situation in which privatisation was the best solution for a problem that was created largely by the Government.
Our final points are convincing. Yesterday we telephoned 10 people who had been involved in the bidding process. They are too frightened to go public, but

they levelled charges, and the dossier will be given to the appropriate authorities in the House so that they can investigate it.
Those people say that the bidding process was an elaborate charade and that there was no level playing field. They say that they were given desperately inadequate information upon which to base their bids. They are concerned because when the finals bids were submitted, but before they were accepted and announced in the House on 19 February, certain bidders were asked to rebid. That has implications for fair trading. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
Most of the bidders were not given any idea that large tax handouts would be available as part of the restructuring. The Lakin consortium is a classic example because £0·5 million was given to each of the four centres and yet was denied to the bidder mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. Those bidders believe that the management buyout had the hid sewn up from an early date.
If that is the case, we must ask who the Government are trying to fool. Are they trying to fool the 61 prospective bidders who had thought that they were making a real bid? Are they trying to fool Parliament, or are they trying to fool themselves by thinking that they could transfer nearly £200 million worth of publicly provided assets from the public sector to the private sector and yet provide no income either for the Consolidated Fund, the budget of the Department of Employment or to defray in any way the huge excesses that we have identified this evening?
We think that it is a scandal. We demand firm action from the Government and that they make a statement at the earliest possible date. We shall give our evidence and dossier to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service so that it can investigate the misleading of Parliament in the supply estimates. We shall also seek further to expose the fair trading aspects of the bidding process and if our evidence is conclusive, we shall take it to the Law Officers. We look forward to the Minister's speech.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I begin by paying tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Carr). We were all touched by his tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Allan Roberts, who was a very well liked Member. I was also touched by the hon. Gentleman's obvious commitment to the constituency that he is taking over. I was interested in and reflected on his comments that Bootle has provided a permanent majority for hon. Members representing his party. It must therefore be a shock for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House, where, of course, he will be in a permanent minority throughout his parliamentary career.
I am grateful to the Select Committee on Employment and to its Chairman for ensuring that the House has had this opportunity to debate the training estimates today. No hon. Member—of any party—underestimates the importance of training to our future economic prosperity and international competitiveness. Only with a skilled and competent work force will the country possibly be able to meet the challenges which lie ahead of us in the coming years.
I shall try to cover as many of the points that have been made as I can during the time available to me.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and several other hon. Members of all parties have drawn attention to the European Commission's report on relative skill levels in this country and other European Community countries. It is extremely difficult to make sensible international comparisons about such matters. That fact cannot be better illustrated than by the survey that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, which suggests that Greece has a more highly skilled work force than Germany. That may be Madam Papandreou's aspiration, but on an objective level, it is not thought likely.
We have heard a lot from Opposition Members over the last couple of hours about reductions in Government expenditure on training. The House must recognise that the Government will be spending £2·7 billion on training in the current year. That is a massive investment by any standards. Government spending on training has risen sharply, by 60 per cent. in real terms over the past four years. Over the same period, unemployment has gone down by 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) did not say that the current level of our training expenditure is nearly three times more in real terms than the amount that the Labour party spent on training in its last year of government 
Of course, the funding levels on youth training and employment training reflect changes in the groups that those programmes are designed to benefit. As the House knows, there has been a severe decline in school leavers. In conjunction with that, there has been a welcome increase in the number of young people staying on at school in full-time education, and a sharp fall in unemployment. It is right that Government programmes and expenditure should adapt to and meet those welcome developments.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) have said, it is important that a Government should work in partnership with employers on training. After all, employers are best placed to judge what training is needed and how best that training can be delivered. Employers spent £18 billion on training in 1987, and their contribution to the youth training scheme increased no less than sixfold between 1985 and 1989. We believe that it is right and proper that employers take the main share of responsibility for the investment in training.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) who stressed that employers need to consider taking advantage of recruiting older workers and women returners.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of ground to cover and he was not present throughout the debate. I hope that he will forgive me.

Mr. Nellist: Yes, I was.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Newham, North-East drew attention to the Select Committee's report on employment training.

Mr. Nellist: Take that back.

Mr. Eggar: Employment training is the biggest programme of its kind in Europe. About 700,000 people

have joined the programme since it started less than two years ago. More than 200,000 people are on ET at any one time.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: That is a massive achievement by any standards. Employment training is a voluntary programme and a popular programme.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: I should say to the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Nellist: We have only 10 minutes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly the Minister does not wish to give way.

Mr. Nellist: I do not wish to take longer than necessary.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Eggar.

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, about half of the people involved in ET at any one time are on a work placement. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the figure was one quarter. Employment training is helping a wide range of unemployed people, many of whom have particular disadvantages. My hon. Friends and several hon. Gentlemen referred to the need for ET to assist those with special needs of one kind or another. A third of all those who start on ET have been unemployed for more than two years.
Employment training has been of great value to people who lack confidence and motivation to take on a training course, let alone present themselves directly to an employer. Most significantly, the trainees themselves on ET value their training highly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, and as the Select Committee knows, a recent survey showed that four out of five of those interviewed agreed that ET had increased their self-confidence and improved their chances of obtaining a job.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: In an excellent report, the Employment Select Committee expressed anxiety about drop-out from employment training.

Mr. Nellist: Is this a debate or a monologue?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is attempting to reply to the debate and is not prepared to give way.

Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have a great deal to cover. The hon. Member for Fife, Central raised several points that I wish to address. The Select Committee also raised several matters. If the hon. Gentleman had sat throughout the debate and had spoken, of course, I should give way.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Eggar: This is intolerable.

Mr. Nellist: You started it, sunshine.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister started it. If he had given way, this would not have happened—[Interruption.]——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am attempting to listen to a point of order.

Mr. Nellist: If the Minister had given way, we could have dealt with this more quickly. Given the constraints of the debate, it is not possible for everyone who wants to take part to speak. I spoke to the occupant of the Chair at the beginning of the debate and advised the Chair that I would not seek to take up the time of the Minister and other hon. Members but would seek to make only one point. I have tried to make that point to the Minister for the past lour or five minutes. He should withdraw his remark that I did not take part in the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If the hon. Gentleman had sought to catch my eye or that of my predecessor in the Chair, I am sure that every attempt would have been made to accommodate him.

Mr. Eggar: I was commenting on the Select Committee's report about drop-out from ET. We have introduced several measures designed to deal with the problem. I should like to run through them.
We made several important changes to the employment service's counselling arrangements designed to provide more effective help for people returning to work, particularly the long-term unemployed. Those include specific back-to-work plans setting out the agreed action at the end of each counselling interview and more rigorous and systematic follow-up of those who fail to take the agreed action. That should meet some of the Committee's anxieties.
Secondly, we have introduced more intensive help and advice for every unemployed person who remains unemployed after two years. From the autumn, those in that group who persistently refuse all options on offer will be required to take one of our short restart courses.
Thirdly, we have set the new Employment Service Agency a specific target for the number of long-term unemployed people who start on ET—rather than those who are simply referred to employment training. That will give the employment service clear responsibility for helping people to start on programmes.
Fourthly, we have streamlined the procedures for entry into ET, to cut down time from the initial interview to the start of training.
Finally, as I have said already, we set up an internal scrutiny group to examine the specific issue of take-up. Several of the measures that I have announced today address the scrutiny group's recommendations. We intend to make the scrutiny public and to decide on any further action before the recess. I shall certainly take into account the points made on the matter by both the Select Committee and hon. Members on both sides of the House when we come to make our decisions.
In the few minutes available to me, I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Fife, Central. Both commented on the sale of the Skills Training Agency. On behalf of the Government I wish to make our position

absolutely clear. There is no scandal. No one received favourable treatment and there were no sweeteners. The sale was conducted in an entirely fair and scrupulous way. All the organisations that expressed an interest were able to bid on an equal basis. All the bids that we received were evaluated on an equal basis by our professional advisers so that a proper comparison could be made between each bid.
In our final decision on the sale, we went for the combination which best met the Government's objectives for the sale. Those objectives started with the need to preserve training capacity and to offer the best return to the taxpayer. I resent the attack that was made on civil servants. I assure the House that those three civil servants were divorced from decisions affecting personnel and resource matters which might affect the new companies.
The right way to have the matter examined—I welcome the decision of the National Audit Office—is for the NAO to carry out a study into the sale of the Skills Training Agency. The appropriation accounts audited by the NAO show that the STA made a loss in all but one of the past five years. Estimates were laid before the House and were available for all hon. Members to sell. We expected to sell the STA in the financial year of 1989–90. We missed that deadline. We completed the bulk of the sale at the end of April, some four weeks after the end of the financial year in 1990. The House will recognise our difficulty in producing estimates to cover that time of flux. I am confident that the NAO will confirm the substantial loss of the STA indicated in the revised estimates.
I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that I have not covered some points. In the time available to me, I have tried to deal with the issues as fully, comprehensively, and fairly as possible. I welcome the decision of the House to have this debate. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East wishes to have the last word.

Mr. Leighton: rose——

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We still have time left.

Mr. Leighton: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must listen to a point of order.

Mr. Nellist: We still have one minute left. Therefore, I rise to make a short speech.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister has kindly agreed to give ——

Mr. Nellist: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to put a point of order to me?

Mr. Nellist: I do not need to ask the leave of the House to speak a second time. Therefore, I rise to take the last minute if the Minister does not want it.
The scandal about this debate, which the Minister has refused to answer, is the point that——

The Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings were deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Resolution [6 June].

Department of Social Security

Low INCOME STATISTICS

Class XIV, Vote 7

[Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1987–88, Families on Low Income: Low Income Statistics ( House of Commons Paper No. 565), the Government's reply to that Report (Cm. 523), the Fourth Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90, Low Income Statistics (House of Commons Paper No. 376) and Memoranda laid before the Committee: Households Below Average Income: A regional analysis 1980–85, a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 378–1), and The Income Support System and the Distribution of Income in 1987, a study commissioned by the Social Services Committee, Session 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 378–11)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £991,572,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities, voluntary organisations, and major capital works projects for the Department of Health, including telecommunications capital.—[Mr. Nicholas Scott.]

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to thank the Liaison Committee for the time that has been made available to discuss the estimate. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, where I am listed as parliamentary consultant to the Civil and Public Servants Association. Hon. Members might feel that my contribution will be unduly influenced by that responsibility. There will be a prize for anyone who can spot the bias. However, I warn the House that I will be judge and jury on whether the prize is to be awarded.
I thank Bob Twigger in the statistics section of the Library for the help that he gave the Select Committee with its report. I thank the specialist advisers Tony Atkinson, Richard Berthoud and Michael O'Higgins. I thank the two researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies who carried out the work for the Committee—Steven Webb and Paul Johnson. The debate gives me the opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to thank our staff. They number only six and their performance is something that I and other hon. Members wish to salute.
The debate is about the estimate and the opportunity provided to carry out our traditional function as parliamentarians: to monitor how the poor fare, and especially how they have fared during the past decade. In fairness, the Minister may say that we should debate a slightly narrower span. We must be honest and complimentary about the Government, in that they have always been clear about how they believe they should carry out the responsibility of judging the welfare of the poor. They have not been interested, as historically we have been interested, in counting the numbers—indeed, the head count exercise has been abolished. Those hon. Members who have longer experience than I have—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in his place—may say that that was because the

Government knew what was happening to the figures. However, we all know that the head-counting exercise ceased operation half way through this Parliament.
The Government also said that they were not interested —as other Governments had been—in measuring whether the gap had grown between the living standards of those at the bottom of society and those on average earnings, let alone those on high earnings. They said that they were interested in only one thing—that if they could get the economy to grow, the living standards of those at the bottom would grow faster than they would otherwise grow in periods of more modest economic growth. We can understand why the Government, after abolishing the low income statistics and introducing their new analysis of households below average earnings, were so happy to fall on the results, which seemed to justify all that the Government had asserted—that if they got the economy moving, not just crumbs but whole loaves would fall off the rich man's table to those below the tablecloth.
We might ask why the Government so readily accepted the figures from their statisticians. Opposition Members and perhaps some Conservative Members—I would call them hon. Friends—might question whether the Government checked those figures. If they did, who did the checking? It was because the figures did not make sense to the Select Committee that we asked Parliament for money to ask the Institute for Fiscal Studies to prepare a report, and that report gave us very different findings to those published by the Government.
When the Committee examined the figures it asked how, with the big increase in unemployment, the figures could be true. How could they add up when the Government had had a strategy of trying to get people into low-paid jobs? Indeed, the Government subsidised people who took low-paid jobs. How could the figures make sense when there had been cuts in child benefit? How could they make sense when the Government had abolished the link with earnings or prices, whichever was most favourable, for payment of long-term benefits? How could they make sense when a record number of people were becoming disqualified from benefit? How could they make sense when, in some instances, wages councils had been abolished or their scope impaired?
It is important to put the findings on the record. The Government's original report said that the poorest 10 per cent. had experienced an increase in their living standards of twice that experienced by the average household. We questioned that. The findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that, far from the gain for the poorest being twice that of the average household, it was only half. To some extent, therefore, this debate is genuinely seeking information from the Government about how they operate, and I hope that the Minister will not treat that cynically when he replies.
Do the Government use those figures? When they were setting the recent benefit increases, did they look at their findings on what was happening to the living standards of those on below average earnings, and especially the poorest? If so, how did that affect the uprating? What will the Government do at the next uprating when their figures must be put aside and they are aware of the Select Committee findings, which show a different picture? If the Government pay no attention either to their figures or to our figures, why collect them in the first place and why go through the charade of pretending that they are important?
I wish to explain what the Committee hopes that the Government's approach will be. The Minister may emphasise the favourable parts of our previous report which welcomed the new data published by the Government. The Committee did not suggest that it was a foul and unnecessary exercise; it said that the information was an important collection of data on what was happening to the living standards of those on below average incomes.
For instance, it allows us to relate how the living standards of those at the bottom are rising compared with all other groups in the community. It allows us to check the numbers. Unlike having a lowest 10 per cent.—and there must always be a bottom 10 per cent.—if the Government pick a point at half average earnings, it is of interest to know whether their policy on targeting is working. If it is, we would expect the numbers on below half average earnings to fall. If the numbers were increasing, that might suggest that the targeting policy was not as successful as the Government have claimed. Therefore, the Opposition and the Select Committee welcome the introduction of the new data, although we might make a plea for it to be better checked next time.
We have said that it is important to run that data in parallel with other data counting the numbers on benefit, not because it will prove a political point but because the House sets the rates of benefit and it has a duty and a responsibility to determine how many people are claiming those benefits and—probably more important—how many people who may be eligible are not claiming and therefore have living standards below that level.
In making a plea for the reintroduction of the old series, to run parallel with the Government's series, I hope that no one will use that as a definition of poverty. That would be a sterile debate. It would mean that if a Government increased the real value of benefits, one side could say that the numbers of poor had gone up, even though the living standards of those groups had risen.
Equally, if the Government reduced the real rates of benefits, they could proudly tell Parliament, "We have achieved the target of reducing the numbers in poverty," although at the same time they would have to admit, if they were honest, that they were making the survival of the poor that much more difficult.
I am not, therefore, asking for such a reintroduction so that we can return to that sterile debate. We need it because historically, for more than a century, we have examined the rates laid down by the House—in the Poor Laws, under the old unemployment assistance board, in terms of national assistance, under supplementary benefit or now under income support—to see how the numbers claiming are rising or falling and, of particular importance, whether people are below that level.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Chairman of the Select Committee saying that, when there is economic growth in a country, all people, whatever their income—whether they are in receipt of income or earnings or benefit—should benefit from that economic growth? Does he agree that that should be the objective of any Government, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative?

Mr. Field: Yes indeed, and the two Conservative Members seated below the Gangway—the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price)—were Members when a Conservative Government

put on to the statute book regulations to ensure that that happened. They were also Members when, sadly, the Government abolished the link between earnings and prices, using whichever was the most favourable to claimants, and thus ensured that during a period of record economic growth those at the bottom did not participate in the way in which the hon. Member for Macclesfield described.
If all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate are to get in, we must be disciplined and limit ourselves to about 10 minutes, so I end with three further questions, and I hope that in the Minister's 10-minute reply he will give a hint of an answer.
First, the Minister is in a superior position to the rest of us, except for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, whom we welcome to the debate, in that he has seen the results of the data concerning living standards between 1985 and 1987. Would we be right in thinking that one reason why the Government have not published those figures relating to the period up to 1987 is that the results for the poorest show an even worse outcome than the revised figures that the Select Committee published for 1981 to 1985?
Secondly, given that the biggest reforms since Beveridge —that is how the Government billed them—were introduced by income support in 1988, will the Government undertake a special analysis of the data for that year so that we can see who gained, who lost and how effective that whole policy review was?
If the Government say that their resources are limited and their statisticians overworked, and similar circumstances with which we can sympathise, may I ask them, thirdly, as the Conservatives favour contracting out, to consider contracting out the whole of this operation to the Institute of Fiscal Studies? Not only might that result in fewer mistakes, but, considering the performance of the institute, we would have the results much sooner. Might that be the reason why the Government do not want to go in for a bit of privatisation on this front?

Sir David Price: I support the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said. The House will recognise that he was speaking as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services. As such, he should—I am sure that he does—command the respect and attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman was so comprehensive in his remarks that I can be mercifully brief.
I have only one general point to make. It is that the more accurate measurement of low incomes is essential to the implementation of this or any other Government's social policies. For many years it has been agreed across the party spectrum that there should be a floor in society below which nobody—I emphasise "nobody"—should be allowed to fall.
I remind my hon. Friends that we in the Conservative party have been committed to such a proposition certainly since the wartime coalition Government and their 1944 White Papers, and many could argue, much earlier. In "The Right Road for Britain," a policy statement of our party in 1950, we said:
The social services are no longer, even in theory. a form of poor relief. They are a co-operative system of mutual aid


and self-help provided by the whole nation and designed to give to all the basic minimum of security, of housing, of opportunity, of employment and of living standards"—
I ask the House to mark the following words —
below which our duty to one another forbids us to permit anyone to fall.
"The Right Road for Britain" was only a spelling out of what our then leader, Winston Churchill, declared to our Brighton party conference in 1947, which I attended, when he said:
The scheme of society for which we stand is the establishment and maintenance of a basic minimum standard of life and labour below which a man or woman of goodwill, however old and weak, will not be allowed to fall.
The obvious question which arises from such clear social purposes is how we collectively, as a society, set and then monitor that basic minimum standard. That is the issue before us tonight.
The current mechanism by which we deliver financial assistance to those at the lowest levels of the income scale is income support and housing benefit, following, historically, supplementary benefit. But how are we to know whether that income support is at any moment set at a level sufficient to achieve that purpose? How do we know when it is failing because it is insufficient? Are there any objective measures by which income levels can be set? Is that an impossible statistical exercise? Must we be content with more subjective factors to determine minimum income?
I confess that I seek some objective measure which all can recognise and accept as a fair description of minimum income at any moment, an objective measure that is resistant to political disputation. Perhaps I express a faint and distant hope. But only by that means can we do right by the poorest of our fellow citizens. As the great Lord Kelvin stated:
When you can measure what you are speaking of, and express it in numbers, you know that of which you are discoursing. But when you cannot measure it, and express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a very meagre and unsatisfactory kind." 
None of those who study these matters would claim that current figures are very meagre. That would be a reckless assertion. But I hope that we can all recognise that they are far from fully satisfactory. The hon. Member for Birkenhead began to illustrate their unsatisfactory nature.
As I see it, the current discussion about how to measure low income—some would say how to measure poverty —is a choice between using social security benefit or using some defined point in the distribution of income. The second key issue, whichever yardstick is chosen, is what can be bought at that level of income—in other words, what standard of living that income permits.
The third issue is who is living at or below that standard of living—what are the composition and characteristics of the lowest income groups? Are they permanent groups or do people move in and out? The use of social security benefit scales, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, has an obvious appeal because there is a clear policy relationship. To some extent, the scales represent the levels of living for others that we as a community are willing to pay for. Therefore, there is an obvious interest in how people are faring in relation to those income levels. Their use also means that the choice of that cut-off point does not lie solely with the interpreter of the figures, although

there has been some disagreement about whether the appropriate cut-off point is 100 per cent. of the scale, 110 per cent. or 120 per cent.
However, the benefit scales approach can be positively misleading. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, Ministers and officials have, for at least 20 years, made that, point by saying that if benefit rates are increased, the effect is to raise the number of people in poverty. Equally, if benefits fall relative to the incomes of the rest of the population, the use of benefit scales as a yardstick will mask an underlying increase in poverty. In some ways, by using that yardstick, one can determine how great the poverty is, rather than the reality of the poverty.
The value of a criterion based on a particular point on the distribution of income has the advantage of allowing the effect of policy changes to be examined. But that depends on the criterion chosen. A crude choice would focus on, for example, the bottom 10 or 20 per cent. on the income scale. But as there will always be a bottom 10 or 20 per cent., such a choice is not of itself illuminating. That is why the usual choice in such an analysis is to examine the numbers or characteristics of people below a particular proportion of the average in the distribution of income. That approach runs into the objection that it is not a measure of poverty or low income, but of inequality in the distribution of income. Therefore, both the favoured measures seem to have major disadvantages.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate to the House the difficulty of measuring low incomes accurately, and why the current measures are not totally satisfactory for determining the floor in society that all hon. Members are determined to achieve. That is why we on the Select Committee have been encouraging further examination of the issues and why, next month, we shall hold a seminar to try to advance the issue. I hope that we have the fullest approval of the House for a noble cause—improving the lot of the poorest of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has postulated a noble and worthy objective. The only problem is that the Government have not delivered it—indeed many Opposition Members would say that they never had any intention of doing so. I do not say that about the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but I certainly say it about the Government.
I wish to start my remarks constructively. We all agree that the House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the Select Committee on Social Services for its report. I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chaired the Committee, and all its members for so strikingly bringing to light a dark corner of this nation's life about which there has been so much obfuscation and deception. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and I offer unstinting praise to all its members who have persevered to discover the truth and publish it. I recognise that it had a Conservative majority.
The report puts poverty squarely back on the political agenda. The Government have striven vigorously, by every trick in the book, to prevent that. First, they denied that it even existed. In 1986, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), obviously an authority on the subject, judging from his string of City directorships, said:
Poverty is just not an issue.


The Prime Minister said in the House:
Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity—everyone."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 801.]
When the Government could deny the existence of poverty no longer, they decided to muddy the ground by altering the basis of the statistics. A good maxim of this Government is always, "If the facts are embarrassing, change the method of calculation." They have done so repeatedly, most notably with the unemployment figures, which have been changed no fewer than 27 times. But they still cannot get the figure lower than the one they inherited in 1979. They have also done so by massaging the trade figures, culling the hospital waiting lists and, most recently, trying to fiddle the retail prices index. There have never been a Government who have so shamelessly doctored the figures. It is well known that there are many senior officials in the Government's statistical service who are deeply unhappy at the political abuse of their professional services.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Not true.

Mr. Meacher: It is well known, and has certainly been widely reported. If the Minister wishes to challenge it, I shall send him the evidence on which I base my remark.
In the same vein, as poverty mounted in the mid-1980s, the Government announced a technical review of the methodology of calculating the level of poverty. The review reported in 1988—just in time, because at the same time, the 1985 low-income families' figures were published showing startling increases in the number of people living on the lowest incomes. Therefore, using the review as an excuse, the Government promptly shut down the statistical series that produced such embarrassing results.
I hope that it is not unfair to say that the Government's motto is clearly, "If you can't beat them, close them down." I suppose that is roughly the Prime Minister's attitude to the Greater London council. The Government's new line was that supplementary benefit rate should no longer be used as the benchmark of poverty, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. They said that in future the yardstick would be average earnings, and those below various fixed proportions of average earnings, and those below various fixed proportions of average earnings.
That approach is flawed in three ways. First, the Government closed down the first statistical series in 1985, which the review committee never recommended. It is impossible to have continuity in estimates of poverty throughout the 1980s. The Government have succeeded well in blurring the comparison of what happened in the first half of the decade with what has happened in the second half.
Secondly, the new statistical series produced a howler, as we know, that was convenient for the Government. Far from admitting the huge increase in poverty that was taking place, the Government used the new figures to claim that the poor were becoming better off at twice the rate of those on average income, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said. That is such an absurd mistake that one cannot help wondering, as my hon. Friend did, whether it owed more to politics than to arithmetic. However, I suppose that we must accept that it was an official error. Like my hon. Friend, I would simply add that, if Ministers did not immediately regard such a

conclusion as totally contrary to all practical experience as unemployment tripled in the mid-1980s, and did not then immediately demand that the figures should be rechecked, their judgment loses all credibility.
The third flaw in the Government's approach is that, having produced a new statistical framework that was not only discontinuous with what went before but started life with a palpable falsehood, they are publishing no information at all on the subject. In 1979, the low-income family figures were published every year. Today, poverty statistics are five years out of date. The 1987 figures of households having below-average incomes were promised before last Christmas, then early in the new year, then before Easter. They have still not been published. If the Government expect revised poll tax assessments for millions of people to be processed and dispatched within a matter of weeks, failing still to produce poverty statistics that are now three years out of date smells more of political deviousness than administrative incompetence.
What is so contemptible about the Government's response is that, while they reject the traditional definition of poverty—and I understand the objections—they refuse to produce any definition of their own. It is not difficult to understand why. Whatever definition one chooses, poverty has sharply increased over the past decade.
Suppose that one adopts the traditional definition based on those living on, below, or only just above the supplementary benefit line. That is a reasonable definition, because it represents the minimum income on which Parliament expects people to live. It is also a distinctly conservative definition. Today's income support rate for an adult over 25 is £36·70, or £57·60 for a couple. Compare that with today's average wage of £295 per week, according to the Government's figures.
That means that a single adult on supplementary benefit has to survive on one eighth of the average wage, and a couple on less than one fifth. I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members, and particularly the Tory Members to whom I am addressing this remark, could live on such a small income for a week, let alone for months or years on end. One former Conservative Member, Matthew Parris, could not manage to do so when he tried.
Taking even an extremely meagre definition of poverty, it is a matter for urgent attention on this country's political agenda that, in 1979, 4 million people were living on supplementary benefit but by 1985, there were 7 million. In 1979, a further 2 million people were living below the supplementary benefit level, but by 1985 the figure had risen to 2·5 million.
Because supplementary benefit involved entitlement to single payments for such items as bedding and fridges, until the former Secretary of State abolished them in the infamous Fowler reviews, and because such items are worth up to 40 per cent. of basic supplementary benefit rates, it is relevant that, in 1979, a total of 5·5 million people were living just 40 per cent. above the supplementary benefit line, but by 1985 the figure had risen to 6 million.
By a highly conservative definition of poverty, by 1985 an extra 4 million people, making a total of 15·5 million, were living on extremely low incomes. That is about one in four of the population, according to the Government's own figures. It is particularly worrying that the number of children living below the supplementary benefit line nearly doubled in the six years to 1985, to 2·5 million. That puts an entirely different gloss on the upbeat picture that the


Prime Minister so often and so misleadingly paints, when she says that average earnings have increased by 31 per cent. since 1979. The right hon. Lady omits to mention that that increase is confined to those in work and excludes all who cannot work and who are dependent on benefits. They account for one third of the whole nation.
The Prime Minister also manages to avoid mentioning that that group has increased—not decreased—by as much as one third under her regime, and she has been forced to eat her words that the poorest one tenth of the population have enjoyed a rise in their real living standards of double the average. As we now know, the actual rise of 2 per cent. per year is little more than one third of the national average.
Even that 2 per cent. is an average figure covering 5 million people, which suggests that large numbers of them have almost certainly enjoyed no increase. In other words, there has been a growth in absolute poverty during the Government's first six years.
We continually talk about percentage increases for this group or that group. At the risk of sounding banal, let me point out that people do not buy things in shops with percentages; they pay money. The Government's use of percentages is a gross concealment of what is happening in our society. Let me give three examples.
The Government have now been forced to admit that the poorest tenth of the population have had an average income rise of 2 per cent. a year; the average worker—the Government are constantly complaining—is receiving a rise of9·5 per cent.; but a recent survey in The Guardian showed that the chairmen of Britain's top 100 companies paid themselves a 33 per cent. increase last year.
That implies that the average worker did four times better than the lowest-paid tenth of the population, and that the top chairmen did four times better than the average worker; but that is not the case. The percentages are calculated on completely different bases. Those percentages actually mean that the poorest tenth of the population have been receiving about a 70p rise a week and the average worker a rise of £27 a week, but that Britain's top chairmen have been paying themselves rises that average £2,400 a week.
The Government should stop their pretence that ours is a percentages society. They should stop veiling the reality of inequality in Britain today and spell out the facts of poverty in pounds and pence, which everyone can understand and with which everyone can identify. If they will not do that, it is because they do not want the truth to be known, but Opposition Members do. In future, we shall regularly give the straight money facts about poverty and wealth in cash figures for all to see.
The Government last published figures five years ago. It is a scandal that they have shut down the low income family series, thus depriving us of the only comprehensive data that analyse the performance of social security and its ability to provide an income safety net for those in need. That, of course, is precisely why the Government shut it down. Nevertheless, despite all the Government's attempts to conceal, there are pointers to what has been happening post-1985.
I am sure that all hon. Members take the point so nicely made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead about privatising, but there is one form of it that we would

all favour. It was the Institute for Fiscal Studies that exposed the Government's howler pre-1985, and it has now produced estimates for 1987 on a similar basis to the low-income family series. It found that the number of people in families living on, below or no more than 40 per cent. above the poverty line had risen to 18·5 million—7 million more than in 1979. What makes that all the more remarkable is that it was after the longest burst of economic growth since the war, as the former Chancellor —who is not known for his modesty—constantly reminds us. On that basis, one wonders what is happening now, when the economy is in stagnation and on the brink of recession.
For more than a century, Governments have been keeping an annual check on the position of low-paid workers. Throughout that century, with monotonous consistency, the lowest-paid tenth have maintained their pay at 65 or 66 per cent. of the national average: that was exactly the position in 1979. Today their pay has been cut to 58 per cent.—probably the lowest relative position that low-paid workers have held for 100 years.
We have a two-thirds/one-third society with a vengeance. The wealthy have been showered with gains beyond the dreams of avarice; the middle two thirds—at least until the poll tax and bruising interest rates—have done well; whereas for the bottom third—we must not forget that that means nearly 20 million people—there has been unrelieved disaster.
Poverty, however one defines it, has been sharply on the increase in the past decade. To deny it, misrepresent it, conceal it and then ignore it—which has been the Government's response—may be the cynical politics of complacency, but there are clear signs that that is distasteful to an increasing majority of the electorate. As the recession bites and unemployment rises, I predict that poverty will rise on the political agenda. That is one more reason why the Government's days are numbered.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this debate has to end at 10 o'clock and that quite a number of hon. Members wish to participate. If they confine their speeches to six minutes each, that will enable more hon. Members to be called and allow time for the Minister to speak.

Mr. Barry Field: I do not feel tempted to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) although I think that he introduced a rather specious note into a debate that was getting on rather well. To put the lie to his claim that the Government wish to sweep things under the carpet, I have a letter from the Central Statistical Office, dated 12 December 1989, signed by Mr. T. Griffin, which came about as a result of work done by Martin Lloyd, the managing director of the Isle of Wight development board, and some parliamentary questions which I asked about the gross domestic product of the island. The Central Statistical Office has agreed that the island, along with the border regions of Scotland which were previously grouped with Lothian, should have distinct statistics for GDP.
Lest anyone come to the debate with the spurious view that these issues affect only areas other than the south-east, may I say that the Isle of Wight, which I represent, has a


GDP which is 77 per cent. of the United Kingdom average and the highest seasonal unemployment in the United Kingdom.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security will find my contribution helpful or enlightening. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) put his finger on it when he said words to the effect, "Some hopes that we will ever debate this subject and agree on a definition."
I want to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the Rural Development Commission, in conjunction with the Isle of Wight development board, has funded a study by Ernst Young, the first stage of which has just been completed, and deals with the curent economic position of the island and its evolution over the past decade.
The study shows that, although the economy has grown substantially, reflecting the expansion of our manufacturing and service base, we are still 25 per cent. behind the United Kingdom and 33 per cent. behind the rest of the south-east. When we study the figures, an extraordinary situation is revealed. The study has only just been published and we are awaiting phases two and three to enable us to create an economic strategy for the island. It reveals that, while the average gross weekly full-time male earnings on the island are substantially below those in Hampshire and the United Kingdom as a whole, car ownership, which is generally taken as a reliable indicator or personal wealth, is much above the average for the United Kingdom. That is the point that I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister.
There is a continual contradiction within our local economy on the Isle of Wight: for some years we have worn the badge of low wages, without the consequent economic deprivation, and we score "Z" factors in local government terms.
The degree of hardship that one might have expected to find, given the level of wages, is absent. Although there is a seasonal level of unemployment, the black economy has to be taken into account, but I am far from certain as to how it can be measured. It will not divide the House either politically or in any other way if I say that my constituency is an economy in its own right.
The excellent report from Ernst Young, with two additional phases to come, may be more constructive than what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West in his harangue. The Isle of Wight might be an appropriate place in which to look further at the problem of defining statistics. Both my hon. Friend and I know that there are
lies, damned lies and statistics.
The extraordinary feature of the Isle of Wight is that wages are low, though home ownership and car ownership are well above average. That is incompatible with wage levels on the Isle of Wight and the level of economic activity.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The House will forgive me if I do not follow the wholly economics-driven argument advanced by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). This is an important debate. I echo the tributes that have been paid to the Select Committee for the valuable work that it has done. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that this is exactly how Select Committees should work and that the Government ought to be cross-examined rigorously about these important subjects.
There is a danger of getting too hung up on methodology—of concentrating too much on statistics and forgetting that human beings are the object of the exercise: to make life better for those at the bottom of the financial league table.
Most of my points are derived unashamedly from the Select Committee report. For obvious reasons, I am anxious that more information should be provided on a regional basis. There would be difficulties over sample statistics in the case of the English regions and the nations of Wales and Scotland. There is a big difference between the economy in the south of the country and that in the highlands and islands, the borders and Wales. Living standards are quite different. Temperature plays its part, as do transport costs. There are many other significant factors.
I wholeheartedly endorse, therefore, the plea for more information to be made available on a regional basis. The Department made a limp excuse in the memorandum that it submitted to the Select Committee. It said that it would cost too much money to do that, but then it said that it would cost about £100,000. If the Department of Social Security wishes to guard itself against the charge of massaging the figures and hiding the truth, it would do itself a favour if it provided statistics on a regional basis.
I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that it is important to know exactly who the poorest members of the community are—not just the numbers but the composition of the group. Do the poorest 10 per cent. of the population stay in the lowest decile or do people pass through it? Is there a pattern? That information is vital in determining Government policy.
The Select Committee drew attention to the impact of benefit and the extent to which the incomes of the lowest 10 per cent. of the population are determined by benefit. Nearly 2·3 million people have been on long-term benefit for more than three years. They represent a significant group of people and we must turn our attention to help them more in future if these debates are to mean anything.
It is also important to study the impact of the 1988 changes. The Select Committee was right to say that the combination of the introduction of water rates being charged at the full level and the 20 per cent. contribution to local government finance—offset by the £1·30 flat rate one-off payment—have made a significant impact. My constituency casework has reflected that. The statisticians will have to consider that as a matter of some urgency. The Select Committee was right to say that the living standards of the poorest 10 per cent. in the community have fallen by about 5 per cent. as a direct result of those changes. If that is true, the Government should address that matter urgently.
The Select Committee correctly identified housing tenure as a factor that needed attention. Housing costs —particularly for single elderly pensioners in my constituency—are becoming a much bigger proportion of people's income.
There are difficulties in measuring poverty, and I am sure that the Select Committee is right to carry out a longer-term study on minimum income. I hope that. I can get a ticket to the seminar and I also hope that the tickets are free. The longer-term study is a valuable piece of work, if only to concentrate the Department's mind. The fact that the Department has someone at its shoulder will keep its mind concentrated, especially as the Select Committee is so capable and has access to so much expert advice.
Explicit income levels that may well require subjective and in some cases arbitrary judgments are necessary, even case by case, to establish a target, an objective or a standard by which other things can be measured. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that setting poverty levels is a spurious game. In the past, Governments of both political complexions have run up against that problem. I hope that he will agree that the work that has been carried out by the family budget unit and some other organisations to put a real cost on people's economic situations is nothing but helpful. Of course we must be careful about how we use that information, but it provides a comparison with the level of benefit that we are offering claimants. I consider that, by that standard, benefits will be found inadequate, but that is not a new argument.
The technical review that was carried out by the Department of Social Security was flawed because it did not take any independent advice whatsoever. It was an internal review. The Minister is looking shocked and horrified by that suggestion, but it would have been much better had the Department taken representations from outside experts. I am sure that the experts in the Department are reliable and technically sensible, but the results would have been accepted more readily had there been some input from elsewhere. There were a number of objections. The use of household incomes instead of family incomes was a mistake, and I entirely endorse the pleas that have been made from both sides of the House today that the new series and the old series of statistics should be run in parallel if we are to achieve any sensible comparisons throughout the decade.
The quality and timing of the statistics are a scandal. I do not know whose fault that is and I am not trying to make a cheap party political point. However, not to have data available for five years on such a crucial issue of public policy is indefensible. I do not know what the statistical problems are. I understand that the family expenditure survey takes a wee while to generate and that the figures are drawn from that. However, it is not acceptable that it has taken so long to produce information that is so essential to any Government's promulgation of sensible policy in this area.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I will accept your advice, Mr. Speaker, to be brief. There is one area in which I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which is that the activity of the Select Committee on Social Services displays the work of the Select Committees at its best. The Select Committees do an excellent job. They are a most important part of this House and it is clear to me how important they are when we say to the House that we have spotted a major discrepancy in Government figures which clearly has had a bearing on Government policy.
The Government have accepted with a good grace that they are wrong, and it is most unfortunate that the hon. Member for Oldham, West did not pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his outstanding work. I am often critical of my party's Government, but I believe that the hon. Member for Oldham, West could have praised my right hon. Friend for his excellent work since

he has held his present office. On all occasions, he has done his best to represent the interests of those for whom he is responsible and to improve the benefits payable.
I also give the same praise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have known him in the House for many years. He has given outstanding service to the Department of Social Security and I only regret that he was not placed in his present position sooner to bring his guidance and dynamism to the job. I am convinced that he will do a great deal more good.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, inspired us to take on our inquiry into minimum income statistics and he was right to do so. The Select Committee has provided a fine service to the House.
Four major themes came from the contribution of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and from the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). They referred to the errors in the low income statistics and to the policy implications of those errors, which the Select Committee discovered and highlighted. They also spoke of how best to measure poverty/low income and about the trends in poverty/low income in recent years. I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered so capably by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and by the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
I wish to point out to Ministers that there are problems facing us today. There are people who have not benefited from the fairly substantial growth from which so many have benefited. The hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out that the greater percentage of people have benefited from the improvement in economic growth over the past 11 years. However, some people in my constituency are falling deeper and deeper into debt.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead knows, my area has seen tremendous strides made in recent years. We have had immense economic improvement in our area and it is scarcely recognisable compared with what it was 20 years ago. I have seen an immense improvement since I have been the Member of Parliament for Macclesfield. [Laughter.] I must say to the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that I do not claim full credit for the improvements, although I claim some of it. However, I still have some objectives to achieve before I finally hang up my political boots.
For a limited number of people in my area, the problems are becoming so acute that the citizens' advice bureau has had to employ a debt counsellor for the first time ever. That finding is highlighted in the CAB's annual report, and the bureau believes that, sadly, there is worse to come. The report said:
Some consider that the problem is confined to the feckless, but experience shows that money difficulties are being experienced across the social strata.
The list includes people who have fallen into multiple and single debt and those who cannot pay fuel bills, rent and rates, and, in severe cases, some who face bankruptcy.
The bureau manager, Liz Goodman, says that at least one new person every day seeks help from the Macclesfield advice bureau:
It is getting out of hand. It spills over into family problems"—
I find this sad, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead shares my concern —
marriage problems and also alcohol problems.


Mrs. Goodman said that people on social security were finding life very difficult for a number of reasons because of the changes in the benefits system which took place in 1988.
I have full confidence in the objectives that the Government have set themselves. I agree that we should target those who need help and give them more generous help, but let us also realise that the Government's objectives have not yet been achieved in the policies that they have implemented.
I have been a member of the Select Committee for many years and I am concerned about what is happening. The Committee has done a valuable job in highlighting certain areas of concern, such as the need for more accurate statistics. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead about that, which were taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. Let us use the expertise of the Institute of Fiscal Studies to produce accurate statistics which the House and the Government can use in developing social security policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh quoted Sir Winston Churchill. It was Sir Winston Churchill who talked about the importance of the welfare state as the net below the ladder of life, which was there so that those who slipped off the ladder, through no fault of their own, could rely upon an adequate standard of living and adequate support from the state. As a Conservative, I hope that that is what we shall achieve.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I represent Bow and Poplar in the borough of Tower Hamlets and unfortunately my constituency contains many poor people, a number of whom are in the lowest income brackets. The policies of this Government have dramatically increased their problems over the past 10 years, and no amount of statistical manipulation or massaging of the figures can disguise that stark fact. Every Friday evening at my surgery, men and women weep when they tell me of the problems they have in managing on very low incomes.
In the current edition of the "Households Below Average Income" report, published in May 1988, the Government claimed that there had been an increase of 8·4 per cent. in real terms in the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population. This was found to be untrue by the research of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which showed an increase of only 2·6 per cent. Moreover, the noted social scientist, Peter Townsend, using data from the Department of Employment, demonstrated that there had, in fact, been a decrease, rather than an increase, in the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population. That has not been refuted.
The evidence is there for all to see. Young people can be found begging in every major city in the country, and the Victorian problems of child prostitution and hunger remain. Hon. Members need only take a short walk down to the south bank to cardboard city to see for themselves the reality behind the statistics, if they have the will to do so. They would see the human tragedies behind the report that we are considering tonight.
The statistics speak loudly of the injustice and the Government's failure. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of families on low incomes rose from 6 million to more than 9 million—a rise of more than 3 million. According

to the fourth report of the Social Services Select Committee, in 1988 the proportion of families—with children—on or below the supplementary benefit level increased from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. between 1979 and 1985.
The Government's response to that increase in poverty has not been to introduce policies to help poor people, but to stop collecting the figures. Furthermore, they have frozen child benefit and many mothers with no independent incomes are now having to cut household spending to pay their poll tax. One of the little-mentioned effects of the poll tax has been to rearrange finances and resources within the family, leaving men with more money in their pockets and women with less. We rarely find poor children with mothers who have money to spare, but more often find poor children whose fathers might have money to jingle in their pockets.
The Government argue that people on income support levels and below are relatively poor and not absolutely poor. However, relative to what? Perhaps it is relative to freezing or starving. On the other hand, Peter Townsend defines poverty as being a level of income so low that one is excluded in all kinds of ways from the normal activities of the community in which one lives. That is the kind of poverty that requires people to count every teahag they use. It takes a terrible toll in stress, which undermines health and personal relations between people. Insecurity and constant worry about every penny make life a misery for men and women alike, and the work burden for women is massively increased.
It is fortunate that members of the Social Service Select Committee were not satisfied with the Government's failure to produce the necessary statistics and commissioned research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies. The institute's provisional figures show that the number of people in families on low incomes increased to at least 10 million by 1987. The indications are that further research will probably reveal an increase to 12 million—a colossal figure.
As we have heard, the official figures are not available because the Government, who talk so piously about the individual and pay lip service to the family, have decided that individuals and families are not important when counting people who live in poverty. The Government now want to make the household the unit of measure.
The Government how appear to believe that every person in the household will share out their income equally. That flies in the face of reality. Does any hon. Member believe that, on a Friday night, all the members of a household sit round a table, put their money in the middle and divide it up equally and fairly? That does not happen. The Government are preparing the ground for a return to the pre-Beveridge 1930s household means test. That is what is behind the changes and that is what is really happening.
The response of the Department of Social Security to the massive increase in poverty has been to insult poor people. On 11 May 1989, in the St. Stephen's club, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) delivered a speech entitled "The End of the Line of Poverty" in which he airily claimed that poverty no longer existed. That speech proved to be the end of the line for his ministerial career. Unfortunately, poverty did not disappear so easily.
On 15 June 1988 Mr. Hickey, the assistant secretary for policy on family benefit and low income at the Department


of Health and Social Security, told members of the Social Services Select Committee that the word "poor" was one which the Government actually disputed. The Government seek to eradicate poverty not by helping poor people, but by removing the word "poverty" from their dictionary. That is their response to the huge increase in poverty and human misery over the past decade.
The hollowness of the Government's claim that wealth has trickled down to the poorest people has been clearly exposed. Poor families know exactly what is going on. They know that their income and standard of living have been the target of Government policy.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: From the bustle, I gather that it may be convenient if I speak for less than my allotted six minutes, so that hon. Members may have limited experience of the eloquence of the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
I shall concentrate on targeting. I do not believe that it helps to talk about groups of people as though there were no strong differences within those groups. The problem in the approach of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and that of his party over many years is that there is insufficient discrimination within groups. Therefore, it does no good to talk about child benefit alleviating poverty if child benefit is available to a mother on the day on which she puts down her son's name for Eton. However, it makes great sense to talk about child benefit alleviating poverty if that benefit is targeted specifically and with discrimination.
The same applies to the Opposition's policy on pensions. We are promised that, in the remote future when they finally become a Government—not a terribly likely contingency—their immediate action to alleviate poverty will include an across-the-board basic increase for pensioners. That approach is flawed if the aim is to alleviate the poverty that is suffered by the poorest pensioners.
Within the group we call pensioners are those who enjoy substantial occupational pensions and who have paid into such schemes all their lives. In the same group are those for whom, when they were working, occupational pension schemes were not so universal, who do not have the benefit of such schemes and must rely wholly on the state pension and whatever additional benefits they may qualify for. There is a vast disparity between the circumstances of those two groups, yet all that the Opposition can offer is an across-the-board increase that will benefit rich pensioners as well as poor pensioners.
If we are to target, it makes sense to limit across-the-board increases and spend the money that is saved on those who actually require additional help. That would help those pensioners who did not have the benefit of an occupational pension, who became pensioners at the beginning of the last Labour Government, who have suffered years of inflation during which their savings have been eroded and who have since had to survive on the results of that period of Labour Government. They are the people whom we must help. The Opposition must take that point on board. They are not talking about alleviating poverty and alleviating the circumstances of the poorest;

they are talking about popular, easy, uncosted and totally unrealistic measures that help nobody except those who do not need help.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I congratulate the Select Committee on its valuable work. The results bear considerable thought. We want figures that honestly and effectively highlight the real problem of low pay so that we can have policies that correspond to it.
We in Wales know what low income means. If the European definition of pay decency is adopted—in 1989 it was 163 a week—35 per cent. of all employees in Wales are below it. In 1989, whereas the average weekly earnings of all males in Britain was £270 a week, men in Wales were earning £31 a week less. In some parts of Wales matters were chronically worse. In Dyfed, the average male manual earnings were the lowest of any county in Britain —20 per cent. of all workers in Dyfed earn less than £120 a week. Four out of 10 men and six out of 10 women in my county of Gwynedd earn less than the European decency threshold.
One of the tables in the regional analysis has shown how patterns are changing. In Wales, 41 per cent. of families earned less than 20 per cent. of average family income in 1980–82. By the period 1983–85, that had worsened from 41 per cent. to 47 per cent. below the 70 per cent. level, whereas in south-east England the figure had decreased from 29 per cent. to 24 per cent.—which means a 5 per cent. increase in that area.
If those trends continue, we in Wales will have a serious problem. That is why it is vital that we have more up-to-date statistics than those which have been made available. It is ridiculous that we do not have the figures for 1985–87 now. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to what can be done to overcome that difficulty.
I turn to the Committee's conclusions about the inaccuracy of the lower decile, where the increase in real income was only 2·6 per cent. compared with the claimed 8·4 per cent. That must lead to a change of Government policy. If the figures are that different, we must have a change of policy to respond to them.
Two or three groups of people need our particular attention. The figures relating to families have shown how those with children are overwhelmingly likely to have an income level that is below the average. To that extent, I believe that child benefit is an effective way of trying to get money to those who most need it. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Maidstone that some who do not need it will receive the benefit. However, when we consider the failure to take up other benefits—the report highlighted this, and I am aware of problems in my own constituency about the take-up of family credit—the price of giving the benefit to even those who send their children to Eton is more than made up for by ensuring that those who need the benefit actually get it.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to something of which I know hon. Members are well aware. I refer to the poverty and low incomes of those who care for disabled people and for the need to establish a carer's benefit or payment to ensure that we are not taking unfair advantage of people who are working for next to nothing. As there are 6 million disabled people in our community, that must be important to all of us.
When we have finished arguing about the way in which we calculate the figures, it is the policy that the figures lead to that is important and the way in which we can overcome the problems of low income and ensure adequate pay. I believe that we need a national minimum wage. Although there is no time to discuss this now, I have studied some of the work on the subject that has been carried out in other countries. We need to look closely at the family credit system to ensure that it responds more quickly and sensitively to those on low incomes, and especially to those who are self-employed and on a low income, of whom I have many in my constituency.
As I have said, child benefit and provisions for carers should be improved. We have a tremendous responsibility to get the policies right and to respond to what the figures are telling us. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to do that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the few minutes available to me, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in pleading with the Minister to make the 1987 figures available to us. From the questioning of his civil servants, we know that those figures have now been placed on his desk. It would help all of us if he could give us those figures at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly before he and his ministerial colleagues appeared before the Select Committee in two weeks' time to answer our questions. We need time to consider the figures carefully.
I heard the pleas for more targeting that were made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). However, it seems odd that the whole thrust of our report was that, despite the Government's claims to have carried out so much targeting in at least the first five of their 10 years in office, targeting had missed. It had failed to reach the target. We should therefore call into question that whole process.
I regret that the Government are not prepared to consider publishing budgets to show the way in which Ministers think that the money should be spent. However, I understand why they do not do it—because they know it is an impossible task. Nevertheless, it would be helpful in the task of convincing the rest of the country and in ensuring that other people are prepared to take a little bit less so that people on the lowest incomes can have a little bit more. In the early part of this century, it was people such as Charles Booth and those involved in the Rowntree effort which showed people the impossibility facing those who had to survive on the lowest incomes who convinced people that we had to start a system of benefits. Publishing budgets would be a useful approach.
I plead with the Government to look carefully at the problems of those who are in poverty for long periods. My hon. Friends have challenged Ministers on whether hon. Members could live on benefit for a week. We know the difficulties that at least one of our former colleagues encountered when trying to do that. For many people, the greatest problem is the long period in which they are in poverty.
What help can the Minister offer one of my constituents whom I visited the other day? He is 65 and a widower. He is on basic pension and a little income support. He has not

worked for the past eight years, not through any fault of his own but because he was one of those made redundant to make industry in Denton leaner and fitter.
My constituent's flat is spotlessly clean, but everything in it cries out his poverty. He has a black and white television. His only form of entertainment is a black and white television. His cooker and his fridge are extremely old and worn. He has worries about the safety of his electric kettle, but he has patched it up. There is nothing new in the flat. Even his newspaper comes pushed through from next door a few hours late to keep down his expenses. His carpet is threadbare. His curtains need replacing.
My constituent has lived in poverty for eight years since he lost his job. He is just starting life as a pensioner. His prospects are that he will live the rest of his life in poverty. It is long-term poverty. He has lost any savings that he had.
What sort of help can the Minister offer my constituent? There are many millions of such people in this country. What hope can the Minister offer that, in the next few years, their lives will be made more pleasant and that they will enjoy some of the luxuries that some of us take for granted?

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I hope that the House will understand that in replying to such a wide-ranging debate in the minutes that are left, I cannot deal with every point that has been raised.
The subject of the debate is immensely complex. Anyone who studies it carefully rather than superficially knows that poverty cannot be solved by waving a wand or by any particular policy approach. Indeed, when one reads some of the academic work on the subject, one is convinced that it is not merely complex but arcane in the extreme. Yet, for some reason, some people use it— I might limit myself to saying one person—as a political ping-pong campaign simply to score points against the Government, knowing full well that when their party was in office—this would be so if it were in office again—it found that the problem was not susceptible to easy, simplistic solutions.

Mr. Meacher: I did not say that there were simplistic solutions, but we could make some improvements.

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will resist making sedentary interventions, I shall deal with some of the points that he made.
I listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) about regional differences. I am not convinced by the arguments. I shall read each of their speeches in detail and the points made, as well as the comments of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the regional work that it has done. I am not convinced that we would benefit greatly from putting considerable resources into regional work. There would be differences between regions and within regions. The special position of particular towns, communities and hamlets within a region might mean that simple regional work is not particularly illuminative.
I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to the debate and, indeed, for the work of the Select Committee. I was never a Chairman of a Select Committee. I was what


the Americans would call a majority leader on a Select Committee at the beginning of the experiment. The Select Committee system has developed effectively.
The Select Committee has done effective work in producing its report. Neither the Chairman nor the members will expect me to agree with every word of it, but we shall respond constructively in due course to the suggestions that they have made. I hope that that will be acceptable.
I shall make some general observations on the issues before the House tonight before dealing with the speeches of individual hon. Members. To some extent, I repeat my opening remarks when I recall the remarks made in the New Statesman and Society in its debate on poverty. It said:
The debate…has become the modern equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question, which, said Palmerston, only three people ever understood—but one had died, one had gone mad, and the third [Palmerston himself] had forgotten all about it.
It is easy to get to grips with the subject briefly, but it is difficult to sustain a command of all of it.
I was especially impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is Chairman of the Select Committee. However, he made a few points with which I must take issue. He mentioned the position of the poorest in our society, and his remarks were echoed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I know that there are people in our society who suffer poverty. They do not go in and out of poverty, but suffer it for prolonged periods. It would have been proper for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to recognise the steps that the Government have taken recently to help the poor, especially pensioners and families with children, by seeking to concentrate the resources available in an attempt to alleviate their position.
In case I do not have the opportunity to advert to it again, I must say that I had considerable sympathy with the comments of the Select Committee on the need to make some study of the composition of the lowest decile of the poor—the extent to which people move in and out of poverty, what traps people into those circumstances, what might move them down from higher in the scale, and what might be done to alleviate it.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked me three particular questions. First, he asked when the 1987 figures would be available. We are anxious to produce them as soon——

Mr. Frank Field: Soon?

Mr. Scott: Yes, as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the hon. Gentleman explaining the time scale. We want to respond to the Select Committee, publish the figures and meet the sort of suggestions put forward by the Committee in producing both the reports.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman suggested that we might privatise all that work and hand it over to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It is interesting that such a suggestion should come from an Opposition Member. I do not doubt that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has done excellent work, but it has done so with the fullest and most

constructive co-operation of the statisticians within the Department, who work with tremendous dedication and utter integrity.
At the risk of not being able to respond to many of the other points raised, I wish to deal with some of those raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)——

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has not answered my third question. Has he seen the 1987 figures, and are they better or worse than the 1985 figures?

Mr. Scott: I have seen only a preliminary analysis of those figures. Obviously, I want to see the final outcome of that work. I shall see that at about the same time as the House and everyone else sees it. The hon. Gentleman has made a brave effort to rescue his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West from some of his more absurd allegations.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that the Government withdrew the low-income families figures because they showed an uncomfortable rise in 1985. If he had taken the trouble to look at those figures, he would know that the numbers on supplementary benefit or below 140 per cent. of that level actually fell, not rose, between 1983 and 1985, so the hon. Gentleman's allegation was absurd. Secondly, he alleged that we have made it our policy to delay and conceal the low income statistics, but that simply does not stand up to the light of day. On only one occasion did we publish the statistics on the day that the House rose for the recess.
None of the hon. Gentleman's allegations stands up to analysis. He said that the Institute for Fiscal Studies had produced figures in the low-income family series for 1987 showing that the number for those below income support for that year was 18·5 million—7 million more than in 1979. That is an utter perversion of reality. The figure does not refer to those on supplementary benefit, but to those on or below 140 per cent. of a hypothetical income support level——

Mr. Meacher: That is what I said.

Mr. Scott: I shall consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, but in any case it is a wholly discredited low income level. Had the hon. Gentleman read the IFS report in full he would have seen on page 2 the following words, which are underlined:
These tables are not low income families' tables for 1987.
The IFS was doing its best to ensure that no misguided reader would compare the figures with those for 1979, but that is precisely what the hon. Member for Oldham, West has done. The report goes on to describe in seven lengthy paragraphs three major reasons why the 1987 IFS analyses could not be compared with the low income families figures for earlier years. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will withdraw his remarks.

The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on Estimates, 1990–91 (Class VI, vote I and Class XIV, vote 7).

CLASS VI, VOTE 1

Question, That Class VI, vote 1 be reduced by £100,000 in respect of Subhead H1 (Skills Training Agency running costs), put and negatived.

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £1,286,770,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Employment on improving, promoting and disseminating training among individuals, small firms and employers, encouraging enterprise, running services for small firms and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, providing training programmes for young people and adults, providing employment rehabilitation services, technical and vocational education, work-related further education and the costs of the Skills Training Agency until privatisation, on the administration of training and enterprise, and central and miscellaneous services.

CLASS XIV, VOTE 7

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £991,572,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities, voluntary organisations, and major capital works projects for the Department of Health, including telecommunications capital.

Overseas Development and Co-operation

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
The International Fund for Agricultural Development —IFAD—was set up to help the most-disadvantaged sections of society in rural areas of developing countries to increase food production. Its focus is the small farmer, nomadic pastoralists, artisarial fishermen, the landless and rural women. IFAD's operations are relatively small-scale. In its first decade of operations, it has committed $2·8 billion for roughly 260 projects, an average of $10 million per loan.
Smallness is a characteristic of the organisation in other ways. It was designed to have only a small professional core staff, and to work primarily through other international agencies. Funding has also been on a relatively modest scale. These factors have shaped the institution and explain the rather special place it occupies in the network of institutions channelling assistance to developing countries.
Partly because of those various influences—its specific mandate to assist the rural poor, its small size as an institution and the relatively modest financial resources at its disposal—IFAD has been making greater efforts over the past few years to target its activities more closely on disadvantaged groups.
The causes of rural poverty are complex. They include scarcity of land, harsh environmental and climatic conditions, isolation and lack of assets to cushion the poor against unforeseen events or emergencies. Improving access of the poor to resources—water for irrigation and sanitation, fertilisers and seeds for increased agricultural production, marketing facilities for the sale of produce and so on—is one of the main aims of IFAD-assisted projects.
IFAD gives high priority to beneficiary participation in all stages of the project cycle, from design and appraisal onwards. One way it does this is through group lending —that is, village groups, farmer organisations, women's groups and other grassroots organisations. IFAD has pioneered a number of ways of facilitating access to credit by the rural poor, who are frequently ignored by traditional financing mechanisms.
Group lending, because of peer pressure, reduces the risk of default, as well as making it cheaper to reach small-scale borrowers. Perhaps the best-known example of this is the Grameen bank in Bangladesh, which has successfully provided credit to those traditionally regarded as the greatest credit risks, the landless or near landless and women. About four fifths of the loans are to women, whose repayment record, I am sure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will be glad to know, is better than that of the men, although the bank's overall default rate is extremely low.
The loans finance a wide range of income-generating activities, including livestock, poultry and fisheries, small-scale processing and manufacturing, and trading or shopkeeping. IFAD was the first international agency to provide assistance to the Grameen bank.
A similar group lending approach has been used in the small farmer development programme in the hill regions of


Nepal, in the village development fund project in Mali, in the small-scale rural operations project in Senegal, and in many other IFAD-assisted projects.
IFAD is conscious of the link between rural poverty and environmental degradation, and how the weight of population growth in many regions, especially Africa, will exacerbate these pressures. Last year, IFAD produced an excellent discussion paper on the need to ensure effective integration of environmental issues into its lending operations. IFAD recognises that unless those issues are directly addressed, its efforts to alleviate rural poverty will be frustrated and the long-term sustainability of its projects undermined.
In Mali, IFAD has a project which aims to rehabilitate a poor pastoral community in an area devastated by drought, by focusing on improved soil and water conservation techniques. In Senegal, an agro-forestry project is helping to arrest environmental degradation caused by overcropping and excessive tree clearance. In Bangladesh, IFAD's ox-bow lake fisheries project is helping small-scale fishermen to develop sustainable fisheries by introducing biologically sound management practices.
Another policy orientation that we welcome is IFAD's efforts to promote the economic welfare of rural women by incorporating specific components into projects that are targeted at their needs. I have seen this recently in Bangladesh, where a credit union scheme through BRAC —the Bangladesh rural action committee—is working very well. We are now supporting BRAC through a new project which will extend the geographical coverage of BRAC's rural development programme and establish a new rural credit finance mechanism. The total cost is US$50 million. We will contribute 25 per cent. A recently approved Smallholder project in Ghana, for example, was preceded by a socio-economic survey that indicated that households headed by women accounted for more than one third of the target group; and a credit allocation of appropriate size specifically earmarked for women was incorporated into the project.
In India, the Tamil Nadu women's development project will offer opportunities in a wide range of income-generating activities, from horticulture and silkworm rearing to business courses and marketing skills. There is a dovetailing of formal and informal credit schemes with women's groups. The project is targeted to benefit some 40,000.
In the north-west province of Cameroon, an IFAD project has helped to increase food output significantly, and women farmers have been able to sell surpluses of maize to neighbouring areas. The project has introduced a soil conservation programme that promotes integrated crop and animal husbandry and safeguards the environment.
Because of these efforts to target assistance more effectively towards the poorest and most disadvantaged groups, IFAD attaches great weight to evaluation activities. It needs to weigh which approaches are successful, and which are less successful. We welcome its efforts systematically to incorporate lessons learned from previous activities in the design of new projects. The bulk of IFAD's resources, some two thirds of the total, are concentrated on the poorest countries
IFAD also operates in middle-income countries, however, in areas where there are pockets of poverty. To some extent, IFAD's desire to maintain a broad geographical coverage is understandable. But its projects are small in size, and the active loan portfolio in any one country is also small—often no more than two or three projects. We think that operating in so many countries is not warranted given IFAD's small size; and we should prefer to see a greater concentration of resources and effort in the poorest countries, espicially in Africa and Asia.
There are calls to the contrary, of course, especially from Latin American members of the fund, but we think management risks overstretching itself in attempting to respond to those demands. In our view, IFAD would stand a better chance of demonstrating the effectiveness of its approach to rural poverty alleviation if its resources were not spread so thinly across the globe.
Apart from the issue of regional allocation of resources, IFAD's credentials are solid. It has a dedicated team of professionals under the leadership of its president, Idriss Jazairy, a national of Algeria. Given its poverty-focused mandate and efficient operating style, the question may be asked why it has such difficulty in raising the resources it requires. The answer to that conundrum lies in the institutional structure of the organisation. IFAD was founded on the basis of a partnership between three distinct groups of countries. Each holds one third of the voting power and one third of the seats on the board of directors. Category I consists of OECD countries, category II of OPEC countries, and category III covers non-oil exporting developing countries.
Because IFAD is a partnership, it receives its funding from contributions negotiated jointly between category and category II. It started off for the period 1977–80 with just over $1 billion. Of that, 57 per cent. came from OECD countries and 43 per cent. from OPEC countries. The western donors argued from the outset that categories I and II should contribute equally, as each holds an equal stake in the institution. That was resisted by OPEC members and has been an issue at the root of IFAD's subsequent funding difficulties.
The third replenishment negotiations were concluded last year. In an effort to raise a higher total than last time, and in recognition of the continuing financial constraints on OPEC members, a two-pronged strategy evolved. First, OECD donors agreed that they would match contributions by OPEC donors in the traditional way, in a burden-sharing ratio of 60:40. That was the ratio established during the second replenishment negotiations. That element became known as the core funding.
Secondly, OECD countries agreed to match contributions in convertible currencies by other developing countries in a favourable ratio of 3:1, in the expectation that exceptional efforts by that group of countries would act as a spur to the OPEC donors. This became known as the supplementary funding element.
In the event, category II, OPEC donors, pledged $124·4 million, compared with $184 million last time. That sum will be matched by category I, OECD donors, in the ratio 60:40—that is, $186·6 million. The United Kingdom's share of that core-funding element is $8·9 million, representing 4·78 per cent. of category I's total contribution.
Category III, other developing countries, set itself a target of $75 million. Pledges of $63·8 million were realised. The OECD matching element for that


supplementary financing, therefore, will be $191·5 million. The United Kingdom share will be $10·9 million. Thus, the total resources raised in the third replenishment, will be $566 million. Of that, OECD countries will provide $378 million—two thirds of the total. That will cover IFAD's operations for the period up to 30 June 1992.
The outcome was more successful than the second replenishment, which raised only $487 million. Nevertheless, the underlying issue of the relative burden sharing between OECD and OPEC countries remains. Category III, other developing countries, regard their efforts in this replenishment as an exceptional measure, not establishing a precedent for future replenishment exercises.
The results of this replenishment have reinforced the view that serious examination must be given to IFAD's future financial basis before the negotiations on the next replenishment begin. A so-called high-level intergovernmental committee began consideration of these issues in 1986, but after some useful initial work, its work was suspended while the third replenishment was negotiated.
The committee will be resuming its work soon, in an effort to find a more acceptable solution that will put IFAD's resources on a more secure footing for the future. The crucial aim, as we see it, will be to engage OPEC countries in a frank and open dialogue, to see how their perceptions of the assumptions underlying the original foundation of IFAD have changed. We may need to realign the structure, and the voting power, so that it better reflects relative financial stakes in the institution.
The draft order authorises the Secretary of State to pay the British contribution to the new replenishment. Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall contribute £11·3 million, which is equivalent to over $19 million at the agreed exchange rate.
As I said earlier, our share of the total OECD core contribution remains the same as for the last replenishment—about 4·8 per cent. We intend to pay in three instalments, by depositing non-interest-bearing promissory notes. The first of the notes has to be deposited within 30 days of our instrument of contribution coming into effect, the second on the anniversary of the entry into effect of the replenishment, and the last by 30 June 1992. We expect them to be encashed over a period of years from about January 1992. The arrangements include provision for other countries to modify their contributions pro rata if one or more donors fail to meet their obligations in full.
I know that some of this may seem complicated, but the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wanted to know the detail of the IFAD replenishment, and as it crops up only once every few years, and I thought it worthwhile to put it on record. I commend the draft order to the House, in the conviction that its approval will help IFAD to continue its profoundly important work with the full support of the British Government and people.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister's enthusiasm for the International Fund for Agricultural Development is widely shared. IFAD plays a vital and unique role in development. As the only multilateral agency with a mandate to focus exclusively on agriculture, and particularly on poor farmers, it deserves our full support.
IFAD's focus on agriculture is unusual in today's world of economic adjustment. Its social focus on poor and marginal people in developing countries is even more remarkable. Most important of all, it succeeds in reaching and assisting poor farmers. The democratic basis of IFAD is also unique, thanks to the equal distribution of power between the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries and developing countries. IFAD has the full confidence and participation of Governments of developing countries. It is perceived in both the north and the south as more responsive to the needs of developing countries than other United Nations or World bank institutions.
The importance of agriculture in development cannot be underestimated. More than two thirds of the labour force in most African developing countries work in agriculture. For the poorer citizens, agricultural production is the basis of their livelihood. Nothing—except perhaps water—is more important than the production of food. Farmers rely on what they can grow, and herdsmen rely on what they can obtain from their cattle.
The importance of agriculture is increasing for several reasons. With the world's population set to double to 10 billion, it is essential that agricultural production increases at the same rate. However, that is not happening. Agricultural output per head is declining in many countries, especially in Africa, where there were 100 million undernourished people by the early 1980s. Urban populations are increasing rapidly and that puts an extra burden on farmers, who must produce enough to support themselves and urban dwellers. The importance of agriculture is also increasing, because the pressure of rising population makes improvements in agriculture not only more urgent, but also more difficult.
In many areas there is not enough fertile land. Pressure on the land causes declining crop yields and overgrazing. Competition for land pushes farmers on to marginal land on the edge of the desert or in newly cleared forest. That only exacerbates the process of soil erosion, land degradation and the encroaching of the desert. Those environmental problems are mounting. We know now that the effects are cumulative and tend to be irreversible. It has proved only too easy to set off the vicious circle of land clearance, soil erosion, decreased fertility of the land, disappearing vegetation and an increasingly arid climate. There is no evidence that we can so easily reverse the process to achieve thicker vegetation and improved land fertility, humidity and productivity.
Therefore, immediate action to invest in environmentally-sound agricultural techniques is essential. That means that the long-term value of IFAD's investments in environmental protection, such as its projects to assist families with soil and water conservation in Lesotho, is immeasurable.
Despite the overwhelming importance of agriculture, it has been pushed to the sidelines over the past decade. Many donors and institutions tried with enthusiasm to work with small farmers in the 1960s and 1970s, but encountered problems and gave up. They are now focusing on structural adjustments, macro-economic planning and free markets.
IFAD continues to promote agricultural development. It is persevering and succeeding where many others have failed. For example, in Niger, IFAD projects have resulted in a 40 per cent. increase in crops.
Unfortunately, the British aid programme of the Government puts less priority on agriculture than other donors and institutions. In 1988, according to the OECD, only 9·1 per cent. of British aid was committed to agricultural developments, less than average for the Development Assistance Committee of OECD donors. It is a poor comparison to the 22 per cent. of Irish aid, 26 per cent. of Danish aid, 23 per cent. of Dutch aid, 21 per cent. of Swiss aid, 17 per cent. of Belgium aid and 23 per cent. of EC, World bank and United Nations aid.
Therefore, a renewed focus on agriculture is urgently needed. More research is needed on agricultural techniques which are appropriate for poor farmers, and on methods of adapting to a warmer climate, but the Government are cutting funding for agricultural research.
If IFAD had invested in agricultural developments by funding large private high-technology farms, producing cash crops from the labour of landless peasants, I would probably not have bothered to be here tonight. The strength of IFAD is that it works with the poorest and the most marginal in society. It supplies credit for investments, as the Minister said, to exactly those people who have least access to credit from the usual sources.
It is not just the quantity of agricultural crops produced that matters, but the quantity of food available to families. Too often development planners overlook the critical issues of food security in their eagerness for gross national product growth. Markets do not supply the family food; the family does. IFAD's approach recognises that.
Working with the poor is difficult at times, but also essential. Let me take Ethiopia as an example. Even if the rains fall for the next harvest, many farmers will have no tools or cattle to work with; they sold them off in sheer desperation to obtain food. IFAD has made loans to 70,000 peasants to buy oxen so that they can produce their own food next time round 
A major factor in IFAD's success is its willingness to take up new ideas and new approaches, particularly ideas from farmers at the bottom, not the planners at the top. By building institutions within the local community, it provides projects with a secure foundation. Making loans through peer groups has achieved repayment rates of 95 per cent. in many countries.
Development funds have shifted away from the poor since the 1960s commitment to basic needs. Too many development planners are forgetting what development is, or should be, all about—improving the quality of life for the majority of people in developing countries. It is not just about percentage changes in gross national product, or about tonnes of concrete or miles of roads, or about changes in the trade balance. They are important, but they are only means to the desired end of improving people's lives. By working directly with poor farmers, particularly women, IFAD goes straight to the heart of development.
Of course IFAD could do even better. On the ground, it is not quite as ideal as it appears to be on paper. Like many international organisations, it faces the problems of bureaucracy and inflexibility. Its lack of field staff compounds the problem. Implementation of projects is slow. Its commitments to working with women and to taking full account of the environment are yet to be fully translated into action at every level. However, there is evidence that IFAD is doing better than many in limiting

these bureaucratic difficulties. I hope that the Government will play a constructive role within IFAD to ensure that it intensifies its efforts to reach women farmers and to adapt to their special needs, such as lack of legal status or of property to serve as collateral.
Given the importance of IFAD's work, the third replenishment is disappointingly inadequate. It does little to make up the losses suffered in the second replenishment. When IFAD began work in 1978, it had $217 million a year. That is equivalent to $396 million in 1990 terms. Therefore, this year's funding of $211 million represents a cut of 47 per cent. since 1978. The third replenishment would need to be increased by 40 per cent. if IFAD were to regain its initial financial strength in 1991. Nevertheless, with the Minister, I am glad that agreement has at last been reached on a third replenishment.
I particularly applaud the exceptional contributions made by category 3 members—the developing countries. Nigeria, Gabon, Venezuela and others have increased their contributions, despite going through a difficult period of economic adjustment. I welcome the decision by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members, category 1, to match these contributions on a ratio of 3:1. I am glad, too, that a high-level intergovernmental committee is considering the future financial situation of IFAD. I hope that at the meeting in Rome next Monday, and in future meetings, the United Kingdom Government will seek to ensure stable and sufficient funding for IFAD in the future. I welcome the Minister's assurances on that point.
The third replenishment was disappointing, but the Government's attitude to the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa is, I am afraid, lamentable. The special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was launched in 1977 to enable IFAD to give greater support to agricultural development in Africn countries, stricken by drought and the encroaching desert, at a time of acute economic crisis. Since then there has been general approval of its work. By the end of the year, IFAD will have 30 projects in 24 sub-Saharan countries.
However, when a second phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was suggested in January, the Government stood out alone against a chorus of support to oppose the proposal. France, Belgium and Italy all supported the programme. Every African member of IFAD supported it. Latin American countries—Colombia and Argentina—supported it. Australia and Pakistan gave their support.
Why did the United Kingdom oppose it? There can be only two explanations of the Government's opposition. First, perhaps the Government believe that the first phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa has not been successful. I ask the Minister whether the programme has been successful in raising the target funding of $300 million through voluntary contributions. Has it been successful in committing those funds for projects in sub-Saharan Africa? Has IFAD successfully co-ordinated the special programme with the work of the regular programme in sub-Saharan Africa? Has the Minister evidence of that? Does the Minister agree with the analysis of the United States and other donors that IFAD's work in Africa is generally positive? I doubt whether the Minister can answer no to any of those questions. The right hon. Lady can surely not oppose the second phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa on the ground that it has not worked.
Possibly the only other reason for opposing the extension of the special programme is a belief that the situation in Africa no longer merits the programme. Is it believed that there is no longer an extreme and urgent crisis that needs priority attention? Is that what the Minister really believes? We are faced with the facts that GNP per capita is only $330, and has fallen by 2·8 per cent. since the 1980s, that debt service is 15 times greater than export earnings in sub-Saharan Africa, and that agriculture production per capita is falling. Surely no one can argue that Africa has recovered from the economic crisis of the 1980s.
Given the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa, especially that of agriculture, the region must be a priority for IFAD. The special programme ensures that Africa receives the special attention that it needs. If the programme is not extended, funds for IFAD's work in sub-Saharan Africa will be cut by 40 per cent.
Why should Africa be a priority for IFAD's work? Given the severe economic crisis, African countries do not have the funds themselves to invest in agriculture. In 1988, for example, $21·7 billion were transferred from Africa to the industrialised countries. As a result, investment in rural infrastructure and agriculture has plummeted. Donors are spending billions of dollars on structural adjustment programmes. Therefore, there should be an adequate response to the needs of the poorest who suffer the worst impact of recession.
The projects of IFAD assist those who are at the sharp end. The programmes of other donors that are aimed at alleviating the social impact of adjustment work mainly with urban consumers who are hit by higher prices for basic goods and the problems of those who lose their jobs in the trimming of state bureaucracies. In contrast, IFAD works with the very poorest. It can both shield them and help them to take advantage of opportunities that are provided by an improved economic climate.
As everyone knows, agriculture is even more important in Africa than it is in other developing countries.
Eighty-four per cent. of Mozambicans, 77 per cent. of Ethiopians and 79 per cent. of Tanzanians work in agriculture. Most of the farmers are smallholders and women. Women produce 80 per cent. of family food.
The World bank has described the immense challenge facing agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. It says:
The task facing African agriculture in the 1990s and beyond is formidable indeed. It must cope with the needs of a rapidly growing population. It must achieve sufficient growth in food crops not merely to maintain output per person, but also to reduce food calorie deficits and to lower food imports. In the process, it must be a major employer of Africa's growing labour and compete on world markets to earn the foreign exchange that Africa needs to fuel its economic growth. And it must do all that while reversing the degradation of natural resources that threatens long-term production. This challenge requires a transformation of agriculture.
The World bank estimates that to meet that challenge, agricultural growth should reach 4 per cent. a year compared with a record of only 2 per cent. over the past 20 years. Clearly that will require an enormous effort on the part of farmers, African Governments, agricultural researchers, western donors and IFAD.
We all know that the environmental problems in Africa are immense. We have heard much from the Overseas Development Administration about protecting the global environment, and about projects for the rain forests, biodiversity and energy efficiency. However, in our

concern for the headline issues of global warming and tropical rain forests, we must not forget the mundane environmental problems that threaten millions of Africans every day.
Deforestation in arid—not tropical—areas has been a major problem for many years. Women in Africa spend hours every day hunting for fuel wood. Only when deforestation became a problem for the atmosphere, not just for the poor, did the world start to sit up and take note. If this Government are truly committed to caring for the environment for the sake of the poor, and not just to producing glossy brochures and green platitudes, they will invest in tree planting projects in arid areas, in soil conservation and in local small-scale irrigation with the same enthusiasm that they put into tropical forests and biodiversity. If the Government emphasise such a commitment, IFAD and its special programme for sub-Saharan Africa provide a suitable channel to translate that commitment into reality.
There is now a new threat to Africa—the risk of the diversion of funds to eastern Europe. The Government have repeated many times that there will be no diversion of aid funds from Africa to eastern Europe this year, but they will give no assurances for future years. The sorry comparison between the Government's eagerness in setting up know-how funds for eastern Europe and the bank for European reconstruction and development, and their opposition to a second phase of the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa tells a different tale. It is clear that Africa will lose funds if the special programme fund is not extended. It is shocking that the United Kingdom Government are the main opponent of that extension.
The most recent threat to Africa came from the Foreign Secretary last week. He waved the big stick, threatening to withdraw aid if African countries did not toe the line on free markets and elections. Many of his goals—democracy and economic growth—are desired by us all, but threatening to withdraw aid from the world's poorest is not the way to achieve them. The Labour party, of course, wants to see the Governments of developing countries pursue sound environmental policies, promote social progress and respect human rights. We do and will encourage such aims. However, democracy cannot be established overnight, and during the transition period we should not be penalising the impoverished citizens of those countries when we could be helping them.
Voluntary contributions to the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa have partially mitigated the effect of the overall cut in IFAD's regular funds on the poorest, most drought-stricken countries. The special programme enables donors who are willing to give extra support to the worst-off countries without breaking the principle of equal shares between OPEC and OECD in the regular programme. As long as OPEC countries feel unable to commit more money, and as long as OECD countries, particularly the United States, are unwilling for OECD contributions to outstrip OPEC funding, the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa will be essential to fund IFAD's work there.
Ideally, in the long term, the special programme will be incorporated into the regular programme. I hope that the high-level group currently working on IFAD's future funding will establish a system so that a high level of funding and a high degree of commitment to sub-Saharan Africa can be maintained through the regular programme.
But that will not happen yet. Until such a system is established, it is essential to extend the special programme for a second phase.
Thanks to the first phase of the special programme, 50 per cent. of IFAD's funds have been devoted to sub-Saharan Africa. If the special programme is ended, less than 35 per cent. of IFAD's funds will go to Africa. I stress again that that means that Africa's support will fall by 40 per cent.
I suggest that, by opposing the second phase, the Government are trying to deny Africa millions of pounds. They are actually trying to prevent other donors from making contributions that they are willing to give by closing down the channel for those funds. Surely, even if the Government do not want to contribute to the special fund, there can be no reason for closing down the options of other donors.
I hope that the Government will not only support the idea of extending the special programme for a second phase but will make a sizeable contribution. After all, had the third replenishment reached the original target of $750 million, the United Kingdom's share would be an extra $6·4 million. We should be ready to put that much and more into the special programme.
Even when the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was launched, the United Kingdom was a recalcitrant supporter and an ungenerous donor. The

Government contributed $12·7 million, whereas Belgium contributed $33·7 million, France $34·6 million, Italy $33 million and Sweden $21·5 million. So the United Kingdom's share of the OECD contribution on the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa was 4·41 per cent. of the total from all countries.
I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the idea with the argument that the Government give extra support to Africa in other ways. The proportion of British aid that goes to sub-Saharan Africa is 42 per cent., compared to 69 per cent. from Ireland, 68 per cent. from Belgium and 57 per cent. from Italy. Certainly we give aid to Africa through other multilaterals, but it is not targeted on the poor.
What should the Government do? They should support the special programme for Africa and make a large contribution to it. More important, they should increase the shockingly low overall aid budget, so that the United Kingdom could afford to make extra contributions without denying funds to other worthy projects. The current aid budget of 0·32 per cent. of gross national product is one of the most miserly in Europe. It is planned to increase by less than 1 per cent. a year in real terms, even on the Government's optimistic inflation forecast. That is despicable.
Only when the Labour party is in power, with a commitment to reaching a 0·7 per cent. of GNP target in five years, will the United Kingdom even approach playing its full role in supporting developments around the world, and particularly developments in Africa.

Mr. Jim Lester: I almost hesitate to intervene in this debate after we have heard two eminent ladies discuss this very important replenishment. They both dealt fully with the amount of money that goes from the fund to women in Africa. Although I am a mere male, I have had a tremendous interest in the development of IFAD and its work, and I thought that I should support and welcome the third replenishment and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) struck a slightly discordant note. My right hon. Friend the Minister told us how the proportions of support for IFAD were renegotiated from its original context. The OECD countries should be commended for picking up the shortfall of the other partners. I welcome the contributions made by the developing countries, but the fact that we have taken on a higher proportion of the assistance to keep the fund going should be commended and not criticised. I remember how critical the lobbying was in earlier years for the fund to continue. I welcome the change of atmosphere which my right hon. Friend the Minister revealed in that we are now considering a normal replenishment and we are taking a long look ahead at the way in which it can continue.
All of us who follow these matters support the IFAD principle and operation. That reflects great credit on Idriss Jazairy, who runs the organisation. We should seek to develop agriculture especially among the poorest wherever they are in the world. We all recognise that over the next decade and beyond it is essential to retain that commitment to rural improvement.
We recognise more clearly now that, although food is important and of course we want to encourage people to develop self-sufficiency and to provide the amount of food that they require in their communities, we must also encourage them to diversify from the traditional crops. Part of the problem with developing countries is their history of producing basic commodities for export. Those commodities can be profitable one year, but disastrously unprofitable the next because of changes in world commodity prices and the way they function.
I realised only relatively recently how little development of agriculture has taken place in many of the poorest countries with regard to the ability to exchange trade one country with another within regional groupings. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to Mali. That country produced a surplus of wheat last year, but, because of a lack of infrastructure, it cannot sell that surplus to its neighbours which desperately need wheat. Mali's neighbours have to import it from hard currency countries. There is much that we could encourage IFAD to do, not only in improving the quality of growing food, but with regard to the range of crops and the development of regional markets, so that people in the countries concerned can improve their own position by trading with each other.
We must also consider the proportion given to the poorest families. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us what the criteria are for the poorest families. Those criteria are critical. Those of us who travel widely in marginal areas know just how difficult it is to support those families and how difficult it is to get alongside them. We know how difficult it is for extension workers to operate in what are very often hard conditions

and spend the necessary time to bring about a change in pastoral habits and nomadic practices. We are not talking about schemes that will last one, two or three years or even, in parliamentary terms, four or five years. Often it will take 20 or 25 years for schemes to come to fruition and change those habits. That is why it is so important to recognise the criterion, the poorest, and to ensure that a large proportion is given.
The next point is how we link IFAD's priorities and operations with the ODA's aims and operations. Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, I had always imagined that 68 per cent. of our ODA funds went to the poorest. I understand also that a high proportion goes to agriculture. A Select Committee report entitled "UK Aid to African Agriculture" analyses the figures.
One can often get an odd impression of what is agricultural and what benefits agriculture. Those of us who travel widely know that a road, for instance, may not be mentioned in the agricultural budget. However, a road that enables poor farmers to get their produce to big markets is essential to the development of rural agriculture. One has only to go to Kenya to see that. In countries such as Tanzania, food surpluses are produced in the highlands and in some other parts, but farmers literally cannot transport it to Dar es Salaam in time for the population to eat it before it gets overripe. Therefore, more food is imported to feed the urban population.
When we talk about necessary proportions for agriculture, we should recognise that agriculture requires access to markets. That is part and parcel of the development that we should encourage.
I have been involved in several recent conferences at which concern was expressed about the diversion of aid to eastern Europe affecting Africa and other developing countries. That topic is raised in almost every third-world country that one visits. I understand from the European Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that there is no question of diverting ODA funds to eastern Europe. Although we want to assist eastern Europe, no country in eastern Europe is sufficiently poor to qualify for ODA funds.
As far as I am aware, know-how funds, industrial funds and so on for eastern Europe have been additional to the agreed, expanding figures for ODA budgets. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that any suggestion that there should be any diversion of ODA funds to eastern Europe would be severely resisted. I am convinced that that option is not being considered. Norway's Minister responsible for overseas development made precisely that point.
The Americans have been the only people to divert short-term funds. I understand from their Minister that they have clawed it back. It was a matter of short-termism. The Italian Government have diverted funds in the first year. Again, I understand that the money will be clawed back. Funds that are desperately required for development in the third world should not be used for eastern Europe. That is a wholly different matter, even though it might come within my right hon. Friend's responsibility.
I disagree with the interpretation by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the conference on prospects for Africa. We are talking about political conditionality and withdrawing aid from countries that do not meet certain standards. The voices that I have heard come from Africa as much as anywhere else.
If we want to see economic recovery and the standards of living of the poorest in such countries increase, I should have thought that we would need to ensure democratic accountability. That is one of the conditions that we have accepted for eastern Europe. We need Governments who seek to be free from corruption and who follow policies that profitably and sensibly utilise the resources that we want to transfer to them. It makes no sense to offer funds to Governments whose track record is such that the funds do not achieve the objectives that we all seek for the people of those Governments.
There is no suggestion that that would in any way damage humanitarian interests in countries such as Ethiopia, the policies of whose Government we have never supported, but we have none the less given millions and millions of pounds of humanitarian aid to ensure that people do not starve. If the Ethiopian Government began to have policies that we could see were benefiting their people, I would be one of the very first to encourage a development programme for that Government.
I do not accept that there is a "big stick" or that we have made anything other than a gradual incremental suggestion in line with the World bank and with many others, especially from the countries concerned, who seek the same standards as those enjoyed by countries in the west and which are now appearing in the east. We must ensure that the transfer of resources that many of us seek and want to see encouraged through IFAD and whatever other means are used to the advantage of the people we seek to assist.
Therefore, I commend the order to my right hon. Friend. I am glad that it has been moved. I hope that we shall continue to work actively with IFAD and to support its objectives. I further hope that we shall see the fund increase and diversify in some of the ways that I have suggested.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond as briefly as I can to some of the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
Perhaps we could get one or two things straight at the beginning. The Foreign Secretary's speech to the Overseas Development Institute was not a new message and the prescriptions are not Thatcherite, as the hon. Lady said on the radio. As the hon. Lady would know if she had read it thoroughly, the World bank study on sub-Saharan Africa reached the same conclusions on the need for good government and economic and political liberalisation. It stated:
Equally worrying is the widespread impression of political decline. Corruption, oppression and nepotism are increasingly evident. These are hardly unique to Africa, but they may have been exacerbated by development strategies that concentrate power and resources in government bureaucracies without countervailing measures to ensure public accountability or political consensus".
The report contains many similar comments. We believe that it is absolutely essential that there is good government because without it our efforts, whether in Africa, Asia or anywhere else, will not be as valuable as they could be to the people who need our help. The hon.

Lady should think a little harder about what the Foreign Secretary said, because comments such as she made do not bear on the reality.
The result of economic activity in Africa has shifted increasingly to the informal sector. We need to help people in such countries to realise their own ambition. Things will be done if the people are involved, and that means good government. Without it, one cannot be successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has almost dealt with the hon. Lady's other point about aid for eastern Europe. I simply reaffirm what he said: aid to eastern Europe is separate from, and additional to, the aid to developing countries that is provided through the aid programme. There is no diversion of funds. The £150 million over five years of the know-how fund for eastern Europe compares with a total of more than £1,600 million this year in assistance to the third world. Although I know that that fear has been raised, I assure the hon. Lady that, whatever she may think, we are not diverting funds to eastern Europe from the third world. There is a separate line in the public expenditure survey committee and that is what we are using.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not see why it has to be briefly. Can she assure us that that principle will apply in subsequent years?

Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, where we have a PESC line for support for Africa, the money intended for Africa and the third world will be spent there. I also assure him that, in all that we have agreed, the money for eastern Europe is separate from and additional to other money. I cannot bind successor Governments. I cannot make promises that my successors might wish to alter. What I can say is exactly what I have agreed and what I intend to do. I shall not be deflected from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made a balanced and realistic speech. He said that agriculture is more than just growing food. How right he is. It is the ability of growers to get the food that they grow to the people who need it. That requires infrastructure and many of the other things that are taken care of by other programmes.
Let us consider what IFAD is. IFAD's aid to Africa is about one third of total IFAD resources. We have always felt that IFAD was useful but that it was not alone. It is not the whole answer for the development of sub-Saharan Africa in agriculture and associated matters. It is but one instrument among many.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made great play of her view that the United Kingdom contribution to the special programme for Africa was miserly. She must remember the United Kingdom's total aid to Africa. United Kingdom bilateral aid to Africa rose from £305 million in 1987 to £422 million in 1988. Over the period from 1988 to 1991 we have committed £250 million to the World bank special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. We have cancelled the aid debts of 15 African countries at a cost of £284 million. Half of IDA9, which we have just negotiated—some $15 billion—will go


to sub-Saharan Africa. Over 90 per cent. of the European development fund goes to sub-Saharan Africa. In 1990 the EDF will total about £950 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe asked about the criteria for the poorest countries. Two thirds of IFAD's aid goes to the poorest countries with special emphasis on the least developed and low-income food-deficit countries. IFAD seeks increasingly to target its assistance on those poorest sectors by undertaking socio-economic base line surveys before it implements the projects. It does a total job in its own way. However, it is only part of the whole, and we should always remember that, even though tonight we are dealing with the replenishment of IFAD.
We should also remember that IFAD works through other organisations. It relies on them for the implementation and supervision of projects. I know that IFAD is conscious of the need to intensify its efforts in these areas. There are increasing staff inputs for a greater direct IFAD role in project implementation. But if that were to go on and on, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley seems to want, it would change the character of the organisation, which is essentially to target those who need special help.
IFAD was never designed to be a project-executing agency. That is done through other organisations. It is a funding agency and it is in funding special projects, which are clearly targeted, that it has had considerable success. However, if we try to make it outgrow what it was intended to be, I fear that it might well fail.
Of course, there is anxiety about IFAD's future. But there is a growing feeling among OECD donors that IFAD may not be able to continue as they originally envisaged unless OPEC countries live up to their collective responsibilities for their share of the basic funding. That is why the high level intergovernmental committee that will sit again shortly is important. I hope that when it resumes its work next week it will make sure that the issue of how to deliver the resources most efficiently to those most in need will receive the careful scrutiny that it deserves.
The hon. Lady asked about IFAD's policy towards women in development. I mentioned that in my opening speech. It takes a positive bias in its approach to the problems of rural women and enlists them as creative partners in the rural development endeavours. There is a special programme for women in development, which is designed to enhance IFAD's technical capacity to meet the challenges posed by poor rural women and its efforts to integrate them into the development process. It is a specialist job designed to meet a special need.
The hon. Lady spent a long time making great play about the third replenishment and asked why we could not contribute more. The size of our contribution depends on the overall size of the replenishment. That is decided by negotiation with other members of the fund and on the basis of burden sharing. The OECD members in this replenishment have made considerable efforts to achieve a satisfactory outcome. Of the total of $566 million raised, $378 million—almost 70 per cent.—is being raised by the OECD countries.
The hon. Lady asked why we had contributed less in percentage terms to the core contribution of this replenishment than we did to the last replenishment. She did not put it quite that way, but I think that that is what she meant. Our share of category 1 core contribution is down by 0·1 per cent.—from 4·79 per cent. in the second

replenishment to 4·78 per cent. in this replenishment. The reason for that is that Greece has transferred from category 3 to category 1 membership for the first time.
There are many more technical details that I will not discuss tonight for the sake of my hon. Friends. However, I must say that the net flows of official development assistance to Africa have remained strongly positive throughout the 1980s. One would never have thought that when listening to the hon. Lady. We all know that the problem with IFAD has been the sharp reduction in the OPEC pledges. The OECD does not feel that it should be putting up more than three fifths of the resources, although the voting power remains equally shared. The second replenishment only raised a disappointing sum—$400 million—and that was why we had the voluntary fund, the special programme for Africa. That programme, which was proposed in 1985, was important as it came in the wake of the famine and at a time when the finalisation of the second replenishment was still in doubt. The pledges were voluntary, not negotiated, and the target of $300 million was reached. It focused on 24 countries suffering from drought and desertification. However, that programme does not finance famine relief but is used for longer-term development, and it was there just at the time when we were having trouble with the second replenishment.
I do not think that we can continue to have special programme after special programme; we do far better to concentrate our resources on mainstream programmes and ensure that they get through to the people for whom they are intended. Special programmes cause extra costs in administration. One of the problems is that, as time goes on, donors tend to put more and more money into such funds and less and less into core programmes. Those core programmes then break down and fail to deliver the real intent for which they were established.
In the case of IFAD, a voluntary fund of that special sort and size also poses some clear dangers to the process of negotiated contributions on which the institution is founded. Only OECD donors with token sums of support from the countries have made contributions. When we announced our contribution of £7 million, we made it clear that we regarded the programme as justified, but only in the context of the disappointing outcome of the second replenishment. We expect the activities that were taken up by the special programme for Africa to he fully incorporated into IFAD's regular programme in the next replenishment. That is important if we are to keep down the bureaucratic costs of special programmes.
We are not in favour of continuing to increase special programmes. We are in favour of targeting effort to those most in need, of making sure that our approach is rounded, of seeing that it focuses not only on the growing of food but on the delivery of that food when grown, on its efficient and sound storage and on the sensible use of the resources that are available.
I am certain that the special programme for Africa has been valuable. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that it breached the principle of burden sharing. That is not the case. The SPA relied almost entirely, as I said, on contributions from OECD donors. We are not opposing others contributing; we merely make it clear that in relation to a case for an extension of the programme, the circumstances are now very different from those of 1986, when the programme was put forward.
Looking again at the World bank's long-term perspective study for sub-Saharan Africa, one realises the importance of agriculture—which accounts for over one third of Africa's GDP—both as an engine of growth and as a major contributor to improving food security. One appreciates the constraints on land availability. That means that growth must come largely from increased productivity. That, in turn, can come only through technological change. Such changes must be conservation-oriented if they are to be sustainable. That is why the World bank has the right approach to the whole question of agriculture in the long term.
That study also described Africa's decline in economic performance over the last 20 years. None of that is new. But, above all, that study managed—we should focus on this in discussing agricultural development in Africa—to accentuate the two main priorities. They are, first, the need to increase the role of the private sector in pricing and marketing agricultural products and farming inputs and improving financial services to farmers; and, secondly, the need to identify and disseminate new technologies to increase productivity.
It is important, in the latter context, to revitalise Africa's agricultural research and extension institutions, which are currently not doing much useful work but are doing it at great expense. We are not cutting back on that. We are making sure that in our programmes we target our aid to deliver what is really needed. IFAD is but one instrument. It has been most effective and useful, but it cannot do everything and it was never intended to do so. It would be wrong to try to develop it beyond its natural life, particularly if the funding is to remain solely on the shoulders of the OECD countries.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the environment. IFAD recognises environment as a key issue. It has focused on environmental sustainability alongside rural poverty alleviation. Given that focus, it is clear that it has become increasingly aware of the systematic linkages between environmental degradation and rural poverty alleviation.
IFAD's two reports last year detailed the approach to environmental sustainability and rural poverty alleviation, and the policies outlined in those reports are totally compatible with the policies adopted by other institutions. I believe that we can get on with the job well if we use IFAD as one useful instrument, but remember that we have many others and that we should work in all the spheres to tackle the many and varied problems as they arise.
There is no way in which I would favour cutting back on what we do to help agricultural development in Africa, but that must be approached in an intelligent and widely based way and not in the rather simplistic way that the hon. Lady suggested tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

Catheters

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Fallon.]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a problem that involves one of my constituents, but is also faced by many other people. The more I have looked into the difficulties faced, not only by my constituent but by others in her position, the more sympathy I have with the case that I am pressing. I hope that the Minister will be responsive this evening.
Many people who require essential medical treatment are not exempt from prescription charges, and it is absolutely necessary that they should be. The specific problem to which I draw the Minister's attention is the difficulty faced by those people—mainly, but not exclusively, women—who have to use catheters regularly, several times a day, but who have to pay for the prescription that they get on the health service from their doctors for the equipment that they need.
The constituent who brought the matter to my attention is a woman in her early 50s, who had a job that she found enjoyable and satisfying, helping elderly people. She had an accident at work that led to a spinal injury which resulted in problems with her nerves, and she required a great deal of treatment. She has been left with permanent nerve damage and is unable to pass water in the normal way. She has to self-catheterise herself at least three times a day. She finds it difficult to come to terms with that. Having spoken to doctors and continence advisers, I find that that is not unusual for such patients. She finds it an embarrassment and a disability, and also frustrating.
My constituent is also angry that, at the same time that she is having to cope with this difficult medical problem, she has to pay for the prescription for the equipment she requires. She feels that that is unfair, and I agree. There are three reasons why I believe my constituent is right to feel that she, and others in a similar position, have a genuine grievance.
First, we are talking about an essential bodily function. My constituent manages by using catheters three or four times a day. If she did not do so, the National Health Service would be faced with a patient in a crisis, and it would be an emergency. My constituent has no alternative; there is no way that she can cut down on the prescribed items she uses. Her needs are essential, on a day-in, day-out basis.
Secondly, many other comparable items of equipment are exempt from prescription charges. Colostomy bags are, in many ways, comparable. Those who need colostomy bags receive them free. The Minister may say, as one Minister has in a letter to me, that there is a difference between needing catheters and needing a colostomy bag. The reason that Ministers have given in the past is that if a patient needs to use catheters he or she does not have a permanent fistula. That is the distinction which Ministers have made when deciding who should be exempt from presciption charges. I do not accept that it is as simple as that or that that should be the deciding factor.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Colostomies are reversible.

Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, colostomies are often reversible. We are talking about similar problems. Both conditions involve essential bodily functions and, on occasion, there is an option available for some people who choose to self-catheterise, rather than have a permanent fistula. Some of those involved were given the option of having a urostomy, which is a permanent fistula. If a urostomy——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Which is also reversible.

Mrs. Taylor: —which is sometimes reversible, though not always—is performed, the appropriate bags are available on prescription with no charge being levied. One woman in my constituency in her early 30s suffered nerve damage after intense gynaecological surgery and was left with the problem of lack of bladder control because of nerve damage. She was given the option of having a urostomy, but chose to use catheters instead, despite the difficulties—perhaps because of the dangers sometimes associated with irritation and the other difficulties that can arise with a fistula.
It would be ludicrous if a patient, having been advised that she could opt for either treatment, chose a urostomy on the ground that it would not cost her anything in the future because all the prescription items she needed would be exempt. If the same patient chose a catheter, thus saving the health service the cost of the operation, she would have to pay for every prescription. Patients should not have to make a decision on that basis.
There is also a straightforward medical reason why the items required should be available free of charge. I refer to the serious risk of infection that arises from reusing catheters. I understand that two different types are in regular use. One kind, preferred by many patients, is supplied already lubricated, which makes for ease of use. The other kind is not and has to be lubricated by the user. That second type may not be as good at preventing infection.
Manufacturers of the prelubricated catheter recommend that they are used only once. I appreciate that it may be in their commercial interests to give that advice, but there could be a problem, in terms of the possible transference of infection if further lubrication is required. For that reason, many users feel far safer using a catheter only once.
When patients have to pay for the catheters they obtain on prescription, there may be a temptation to wash and reuse them, giving rise to associated health risks. While patients may get away with that practice to a limited extent, it is surely wrong to encourage them to do anything that increases the risk to their health. Many users who self-catheterise are strongly dissuaded from reusing their catheters overmuch by their medical advisers, doctors and continence advisers. They are certainly dissuaded from reusing them outside their own homes, as that introduces additional risks. In any event, the risk increases if, because of the cost involved, users decide to reuse their catheters.
Let me sum up. The Minister should take the matter seriously for the following reasons. The equipment is needed for an essential bodily function; other comparable items are exempt from charges; moreover, there is a risk of infection from the reuse of catheters, involving a subsequent cost to the health service.
There may not be many cases of self-catheterisation at present—although we do not know the exact number: the

information is not collected centrally, and even the health centres must rely on information from hospitals, which is sometimes slow in arriving. Nevertheless, it is an increasing problem. I spoke to Mrs. Anita Barker, a continence adviser based at one of the health centres in my part of West Yorkshire and she gave me an insight—for which I am grateful—into the many problems that arise. Her specialty is relatively new; I understand that the first continence adviser was appointed only about 10 years ago. Now, however, there is increasing awareness of the problems that face many people, most—although not all —of them women, and some of them relatively young.
New techniques are being developed. When the lists were first drawn up, the fact that catheters were not exempt from prescription charges was probably not a problem, as very few people were self-catheterising. I gather that the constituent of mine who raised the matter was one of the first people in the north to be taught how to do it. Now, however, more people are being considered as candidates for the technique, although it is not suitable for everyone.
The Department should spend more time thinking about the number of people who could be affected. I understand that such problems as incontinence—which are not the glamorous end of medicine, by any means—have not been the subject of a great deal of work recently. A 1984 study showed that 3 million people suffered from incontinence, although that was thought to be an underestimate: as I am sure the Minister will agree, many people do not want to tell others that they have such a problem. I am told that many sufferers buy the equipment that they need by mail order or from the chemist without seeing their doctors, because they mistakenly see their problem as one of which they should be ashamed.
Although the debate is specifically about catheters, may I suggest to the Minister that all incontinence equipment should be available from GPs free on prescription? That might help to reduce the stigma associated with such health problems.
The Minister may say that many people who use catheters will in any event be exempt from all prescription charges for other reasons. Incontinence or bladder control problems are sometimes a consequence of a larger health problem, such as multiple sclerosis or a colostomy. That does not apply to everyone, however. I am told that many young men with spinal injuries must pay for the male-incontinence sheaths that they have to use regularly.
It is all very strange. Some patients are exempt while others are not. Some items are exempt, such as collection bags—which are necessary following urostomies—and the same items, if issued by a health authority, can be given to patients free of charge.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the problems affecting an increasing number of people, and I hope that he will realise from the debate that there is a need to carry out more research into this issue. When the prescription exemption list was first drawn up it was very rare for people to self-catheterise. It is now becoming increasingly common. Perhaps there will be further technological advances, which will make it a suitable procedure for more people.
I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of helping people who are faced with this situation, because it is essential to every one of them. Having to pay for the equipment required adds insult to injury for many people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): It is a great pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She and I spent quite a long time in each other's company when I was in an earlier incarnation in the Whips' Office. We both served on the Criminal Justice Bill Standing Committee. On that occasion she had plenty to say and I was unable to respond to any of it, so it is nice to be able to respond, even if I am not in total agreement with her, this evening.
The hon. Lady advanced the case of her constituent who feels that there is an injustice associated with the fact that the supply of catheters on prescription leads to a prescription charge and that, in her own phrase, that "adds insult to injury" to the position in which her constituent finds herself.
The hon. Lady drew attention to three arguments which, in her view, justify her case that her constituent should not be required to pay a prescription charge for the supply of catheters: that the bodily functions involved are essential and that if self-catheterisation did not continue it would lead to substantial problems for the health authority and, of course, for the patient, the hon. Lady's constituent; that other similar conditions lead to free prescriptions; and that there is a significant health risk attached to the hon. Lady's constituent. The hon. Lady also made some general remarks about research on unglamorous medical issues, which I shall return to at the end of my speech.
General policy on prescription charges is one of the issues that has been hotly debated ever since the national health service was set up, and perhaps it is a debate which, over the years, has generated a great deal more heat than light. It is hard to think of anything new to say on the subject of prescription charges after 40 years. It remains the Government's view that it is reasonable that those who can afford to make a contribution towards the costs of medicines prescribed to them should do so, and that regimes of exemption from prescription charges should be properly directed and should be justified by medical or social considerations.
As a background to the debate it is worth remembering that, of more than £2 billion spent on pharmaceutical services, prescription charges now comprise £177 million, or roughly 8 per cent. of the total cost of the pharmaceutical services of the national health service. Therefore, the prescription charge, while it raises a significant sum, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to finance the majority, or even a substantial minority, of the cost of pharmaceutical services.
Furthermore, we should also remember that the charge that we are discussing is £3·05 for each prescription, with a maximum charge, because of the season ticket system, of £43·50 during the year. Not only are the charges relatively modest, but they are levied on only a quarter of all prescriptions dispensed, as 75 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free. That is the issue to which the hon. Lady has referred. She has argued that her constituent should be among the 75 per cent., not the 25 per cent.
To assess the robustness of that argument we must look at the rules and see who is entitled to free prescriptions. The main determinant, which covers the vast majority of free prescriptions, is income. We believe that those who find it difficult to meet prescription charges on income grounds should be entitled to free prescriptions. That is

why the list includes all men over 65 and all women over 60, all children under 16, all students under 19 in full-time education and all those receiving income support and family credit—the main means-tested benefits.
Furthermore, there is an independent system within the NHS, outside the means-tested benefits system, to ensure that those over 16 on low incomes do not have to pay prescription charges. Expectant mothers and mothers with a baby of under 12 months do not have to pay prescription charges. Ministry of Defence disablement pensioners do not have to pay prescription charges if the prescription is related to the cause of their disablement. Finally—this is the only exception from the principle of income determination—there are those who are exempted from having to pay prescription charges because they receive a particular type of medical treatment. Viewed in the context of the entirety of that list, they are very much the exception rather than the rule.
With those who are exempt on grounds of the medical treatment that they receive, the list of treatments is relatively short. It originated when charges for prescriptions were reintroduced in 1968. The list is substantially unchanged from that which was introduced over 20 years ago. It was drawn up as a means of exempting some of the chronically sick from prescription charges. It has been reviewed on a number of occasions by Governments of both political complexions since 1968—most recently in 1986. On each occasion the conclusion of the review was that the exemption arrangements should not be altered.
There are two reasons. While the cost of adding any one medical condition, such as the requirement for catheters, to the list is not great, it is important to remember that if the principle were accepted for one condition, I should quickly be summoned back to the Dispatch Box on behalf of patients suffering from another condition. The case that the hon. Lady advances for those who need catheters is neither stronger not weaker than the case that could be advanced for those who suffer from cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis—which the hon. Lady mentioned as one condition that she wished the Government to consider—cancer, asthma and Parkinson's disease. If we sat down together for 10 minutes, I am sure that the hon. Lady and I could think of a number of other conditions for which a case, on medical grounds, could be made that was as strong as that for the conditions that are already included on the list.

Mrs. Taylor: I did not intervene when the Minister referred to the income aspect. However, many women who are in the same position as my constituent are in employment and earning money. Dependency adds to their difficulties. My point was that we are referring to a natural and daily bodily function. Absence of such equipment is life endangering. It would lead to a person having to be readmitted to hospital very quickly. It is the life-saving nature of the equipment that we are discussing. That is why I believe that it should be included.

Mr. Dorrell: I understand what the hon. Lady says. Neither she nor I is sufficiently well qualified in medical matters to be able to quote the treatment that would be required to deal with the diseases that I have listed. We would not be able to bandy treatments in that way. If, however, we were to compare those illnesses with the medical conditions that are linked with free prescriptions, it would be difficult to justify the inclusion of those that are


on the list and the exclusion of others, condition by condition. If the force of the hon. Lady's argument for including catheterisation on the list were accepted, the floodgates would be opened and it would be difficult to resist the arguments of those who campaign for other groups. Once the argument is accepted, the resource implications become more considerable than on the basis of the hon. Lady's argument alone.
That is only one of the two reasons that the hon. Lady should consider in reflecting on the force of her argument. The other concern reflects on what I said earlier about the exemption rules being principally income oriented, being designed so that those in most financial need are protected from the requirement to pay prescription charges while those who can afford to contribute something towards the cost of their medicines do so. Many of those who are chronically sick already qualify for exemption in one or more of the other groups. I understand that the exemption list would almost certainly not help directly those in most immediate need if the measurement of need was based on income. Only the chronically sick whose resources exceeded the low-income qualifying level would benefit from such a change.
Extending the list would provide additional assistance for those who are not in the greatest need when income is taken into account and measured. In my view, that would not be the best use of the resources that are available to the NHS.
I should prefer to see the use of scarce resources to secure other advances, and the hon. Lady suggested one or

two in her concluding remarks. I do not want to commit myself at this time of night to a great research programme without having thought about it further, but her comment that the Department of Health should remember the need to undertake research programmes in the less glamorous aspects of medicine as well as in the leading-edge technologies, which can always guarantee good press coverage and media interest, is an entirely sensible proposition to advance. If the result of that research were to suggest that treatments were not being allowed to develop in the way that she fears, policy makers would have to take that seriously into consideration.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive comments. Would he be willing to meet some of those who feel that they are facing difficulties, and who could suggest areas of research and refer to others that are not being covered?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes. I should be happy to meet them and hear their proposals for research programmes, or how others might direct research programmes, to achieve the objectives to which the hon. Lady has referred. I hope that on that basis she will feel that she has made some progress this evening. I look forward to seeing her with a delegation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.